Photo Forum / Digital Photography / ZLR Cameras / August 2005
FZ30 review
|
|
Thread rating:  |
David J Taylor - 20 Aug 2005 08:30 GMT http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz30-review/index.shtml
David
NewsDroid - 22 Aug 2005 07:48 GMT In article <o_ANe.92553$G8.82460@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz30-review/index.shtml I just read the review and NNGGGAAAAAAAA!!!! How could Panasonic make such a mistake? They've mounted the flip & swivel viewfinder with its hinge at the bottom fer crissake!!
Flip & swivel viewfinders are a very useful extra, with three particular uses: photos above your head, from waist-level and from in front of the camera. The Canon S2 IS for example works beautifully in all these situations. Especially in the latter, where the remote or delayed shutter allows you to pose in your own photos, as seen from the viewfinder swung to the side.
So why the hell did Panasonic put the hinge at the bottom, directly in line with the tripod socket*, blocking any view of the flipped screen from the front?
Siiiigh! Does this mean I have to wait for the FZ40?
 Signature ....NewsDroid
* I guess we can be thankful the socket is in line with the lens.
David J Taylor - 22 Aug 2005 08:02 GMT > In article <o_ANe.92553$G8.82460@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Siiiigh! Does this mean I have to wait for the FZ40? It's not completely clear from the illustrations at DP Review:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz30/page4.asp
but the LCD appears to swing down /and/ twist, so it should be fine for waist-level and overhead work, although not from the front of the camera.
Cheers, David
Jan Böhme - 22 Aug 2005 10:16 GMT > In article <o_ANe.92553$G8.82460@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > such a mistake? They've mounted the flip & swivel viewfinder with its > hinge at the bottom fer crissake!! It is an unlucky position, and they have compounded the problem by only allowing it to flip out 120 degrees. If they had allowed it to flip down 180 degrees, the LCD would have been visible from the front at some angles of view.
> Flip & swivel viewfinders are a very useful extra, with three particular > uses: photos above your head, from waist-level and from in front of the > camera. The Canon S2 IS for example works beautifully in all these > situations. Especially in the latter, where the remote or delayed > shutter allows you to pose in your own photos, as seen from the > viewfinder swung to the side. I'd say there are actually five distinct photographicc uses, only one of which is really killed by Pana's hinging. 1) Photos above your head. 2) Photos taken with an arm stretched out to the side. 3) waist-level shooting 4) Candid shooting without the subject realising that you point the camera at them 5) Photos composed from in front of the camera.
(In addition, there is the extra advantage of being able to protect your LCD screen by turning it inwards when you don't need it - which is most of the time, really. Also this feature is enabled by a bottom hinging.)
1) and 2) are clearly different uses. With my swivel-body Nikon CP995, I can easily do 1) but not 2). Why would anybody want to do 2) ? Well, the other day I spotted an unusually big and beautiful Great Green Bush-Cricet (Tettigonia viridissima) sitting on a pole supporting a wooden getty. I got a nice photo of it with my FZ20, but only slightly from behind. In order to get the perfect side wiew, I would have had to float in the air one yard outside the getty, above the water - which unfortunately is beyond my powers. If I would have been able to flip out a flip-and-twist LCD, and hold the camera in my stretched out left hand, I would have gained almost all of that extra yard needed to get the perfect angle of wiew - I'm six foot three from fingertip to fingertip, so I have a decent reach. I probably would have needed a couple of exposures to be certain that I got one right, but the cricket was sitting there basking peacefully in the sun, and obvoiusly not bothered by my presence at the minimal focussing distance for the FZ20's full zoom, so that wouldn't have been a problem.
Also 3) and 4) are different uses. To do 3), it is enough with an additional fixed LCD on top of the camera (there is one such camera on the market now, only I can't remember which one). For 4) you need at least a swivel function such as that on the swivel-body camera such as the CP995.
However, I have to admit that I personally have never managed to look even half-decent in a photo that I have composed myself, so I actually prefer to let the rest of the family take photos of me - even though I am by far the most experienced photographer in the family.
So the incapacity of framing photos from in front would seem as a rather expendable feature to me, personally.
But I still fully agree with you. If Panasonic actually take the trouble to include a tilt-and-swivel LCD, why not include the proper kind?
Jan Böhme
Don Wiss - 23 Aug 2005 00:20 GMT >(In addition, there is the extra advantage of being able to protect >your LCD screen by turning it inwards when you don't need it - which is >most of the time, really. Also this feature is enabled by a bottom >hinging.) This is the one I consider important.
Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Jan Böhme - 23 Aug 2005 11:27 GMT Don Wiss skrev:
> >(In addition, there is the extra advantage of being able to protect > >your LCD screen by turning it inwards when you don't need it - which is > >most of the time, really. Also this feature is enabled by a bottom > >hinging.) > > This is the one I consider important. That one, as a desired feature by itself, is a double-edged sword, though. On one hand, a flip-and-twist LCD can be turned inwards, protecting the screen. On the other, the flip-and-twist mechanism itself is liable to breaking. Essentially, you protect the LCD from one type of damage by introducing entirely new risks of damage.
The bottom line isn't altogether obvious.
Jan Böhme
Tom S - 23 Aug 2005 11:37 GMT Don Wiss skrev:
> >(In addition, there is the extra advantage of being able to protect > >your LCD screen by turning it inwards when you don't need it - which is > >most of the time, really. Also this feature is enabled by a bottom > >hinging.) > > This is the one I consider important. That one, as a desired feature by itself, is a double-edged sword, though. On one hand, a flip-and-twist LCD can be turned inwards, protecting the screen. On the other, the flip-and-twist mechanism itself is liable to breaking. Essentially, you protect the LCD from one type of damage by introducing entirely new risks of damage.
The bottom line isn't altogether obvious.
Jan Böhme
I don't know about Panasonic's implementation of twist and swivel, but Canon's is *very* sturdy. I've never heard of anyone breaking off one of their LCDs. And the benefits of a twist and swivel LCD far outweigh its disadvantages.. E.g. it's invaluable for over-the-head shots, candid people shots (you can frame images with the camera sitting on your lap) etc etc.
Jan Böhme - 23 Aug 2005 11:52 GMT Tom S skrev:
> >Don Wiss skrev:
> > >>(In addition, there is the extra advantage of being able to protect > > >>your LCD screen by turning it inwards when you don't need it
> > >This is the one I consider important.
> >On one hand, a flip-and-twist LCD can be turned inwards, > >protecting the screen. On the other, the flip-and-twist mechanism > >itself is liable to breaking. Essentially, you protect the LCD from > >one type of damage by introducing entirely new risks of damage.
> I don't know about Panasonic's implementation of twist and > swivel, but Canon's is *very* sturdy. I've never heard of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (you can frame images with the camera sitting on your lap) > etc etc. Yes, I agree completely. You mention points 1 and 4 in my list earlier in the thread, but there are three others there.
The only point of my previous post was to point out to someone who apparently was interested in a tilt-and-swicel LCD _primarily_ as a protection device, that this particular concept had an upside and a downside, at least in theory.
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme - 22 Aug 2005 10:41 GMT > Siiiigh! Does this mean I have to wait for the FZ40? Sorry, should have included this in my previous post: The best reason to wait for the FZ40 s probably that it hopefully will contain a CCD with a better signal-to noise ratio. Now that they've fixed essentially all the other user's complaints about the FZ20, what else is there to fix, really?
This said, I notice that the f2.8-3.7 zoom of the FZ30 is a bit slower than I had hoped. Apparently, it is only f2.8 below the 50 mm equivalent focal length. Above, it directly jumps up to f3.2. Which makes the low useful sensitivity of the FZ30 a bit more of a problem than it was on the FZ20.
And for all of us wildlife shooting tele freaks, those three quarters of a stop that they have robbed us of at full zoom are pretty precious. I don't think that an FZ30 will be very suited to attach my Raynox DCR-2020 to. Actually, considering that it a) needs to be stopped down considerably (at least from f2.8 to f4.6) at anything like high constrast conditions in order to even start to reduce (not avoid) CA, and b) that it seems, at least in my hands, as if the image stabilisation isn't as efficient with it on, I'd say it is just borderline useful with my FZ20 as it is.
So the FZ30 would need another stop of useful ISO sensitivity just to come on par with the FZ20 for the teleconverter crowd. In order to be better, it would need another two useful stops.
OTOH, exactly those two useful stops is what is claimed for the new Fuji sensor...
Jan Böhme
Tom S - 23 Aug 2005 02:32 GMT NewsDroid wrote:
> Siiiigh! Does this mean I have to wait for the FZ40? Sorry, should have included this in my previous post: The best reason to wait for the FZ40 s probably that it hopefully will contain a CCD with a better signal-to noise ratio.
I couldn't agree more. 8MP on a 1/1.8" sensor is just insane. It was too much for a 2/3" sensor for chrissakes, what is Panasonic thinking?
Rich - 23 Aug 2005 03:36 GMT Panasonic is thinking, "How can we cram this consumer junk with features, have a huge zoom, and yet keep the price around $500?" "Easy! A cheap, out of date and TINY sensor!!!"
King Sardon - 23 Aug 2005 18:38 GMT >> Siiiigh! Does this mean I have to wait for the FZ40? > > Now that they've fixed essentially >all the other user's complaints about the FZ20, what else is there to >fix, really? Shutter lag.
furtherside@yahoo.com - 22 Aug 2005 14:47 GMT > In article <o_ANe.92553$G8.82460@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > * I guess we can be thankful the socket is in line with the lens. Well, I was far less disappointed in the swivel LCD than I was in the image quality of the samples. The reviewer's notes also talk about this -- just as I had suspected, this camera is too noisy.
Darn...I was really looking forward to this camera. From a form & function perspective, it seems near perfect. I can't buy a camera that is going to deliver sub-par performance, however. I don't buy the argument that when printing 4x6 photos, the noise isn't an issue. Who can tell ahead of time which photo you might want to enlarge to 8x10?
Guess I have to keep looking :-(
-Chris
David J Taylor - 22 Aug 2005 15:04 GMT []
> Well, I was far less disappointed in the swivel LCD than I was in the > image quality of the samples. The reviewer's notes also talk about [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Guess I have to keep looking :-( Chris, have you actually printed any of the samples at 10 x 8 inches?
David
furtherside@yahoo.com - 24 Aug 2005 15:20 GMT > [] > > Well, I was far less disappointed in the swivel LCD than I was in the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > David Honestly, no. I'm going by the quote from the guy who runs the review website:
"I printed out some of the test photos that I took at ISO 400 and they made very acceptable 4 x 6 inch prints. At 8.5 x 11 the noise was quite noticeable, but after a trip through NeatImage the print was greatly improved and most people won't even notice it."
I've had similar experience (actually printing) from cheaper "noisy" P&S cameras...the noise at even ISO 200 is distracting (to me).
Granted, 90% of the time worrying about enlarging an ISO 400 print to 8x10 will not be a problem. However, I know there will be times when I'm on vacation, at an indoor location, or it's getting a bit dark outside and I don't want to use the flash...I'll get that great photo...my wife will ask me to enlarge it so she can put it out on the sofa table...it'll come out "grainy" and then she'll say "so, why did you buy that $700 camera?"
My next camera is going to be a tool that can be used for more than sunny outdoor shots or ideal lighting conditions indoors. So, I guess I'm back to figuring out which dSLR and which lens(es) will be optimal for my needs / budget...
-Chris
David J Taylor - 24 Aug 2005 15:28 GMT []
> My next camera is going to be a tool that can be used for more than > sunny outdoor shots or ideal lighting conditions indoors. So, I guess > I'm back to figuring out which dSLR and which lens(es) will be optimal > for my needs / budget... If noise in low-light conditions is that critically important to you, sadly a DSLR with some super-fast non-zoom lenses may be your only (expensive) route. But I would suggest to anyone who is critical of any image samples to actually print them rather than just looking on the monitor. Having said that, my FZ5 is fixed at ISO 100 precisely to keep the noise down.....
Cheers, David
tedmSPAM-NOT@pobox.com - 22 Aug 2005 20:58 GMT >> In article <o_ANe.92553$G8.82460@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, >> "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >-Chris I know how you feel. I was looking forward to this camera also. Subpar image quality killed the deal for me.
May KonicaMinolta will come out with an "A3" model soon?
 Signature Ted
measekite - 23 Aug 2005 01:44 GMT Until the camera ships how can one be so sure about image quality?
> > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Nostrobino - 24 Aug 2005 14:18 GMT > In article <o_ANe.92553$G8.82460@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > "David J Taylor" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > such a mistake? They've mounted the flip & swivel viewfinder with its > hinge at the bottom fer crissake!! That surprised me too. But there must have been a design or engineering reason for it, as surely Panasonic is aware of the more usual arrangement.
> Flip & swivel viewfinders are a very useful extra, with three particular > uses: photos above your head, from waist-level and from in front of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Siiiigh! Does this mean I have to wait for the FZ40? While the FZ30 design is slightly unfortunate in this respect, it's not in any way a deal breaker for me. Only very rarely do I need to see the LCD from the front, and on those occasions I have other cameras that will do that.
The FZ30 looks very tempting.
N.
|
|
|