 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / June 2005Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5
The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com! Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages. Ok, I'm sold!!!  SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA > 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??? ;-)) Also, why do you think this is the best camera for you??? "g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in news:1112993631.532019 @athnrd02: >> The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. SignatureEric 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!!!' >"g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in news:1112993631.532019 >@athnrd02: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >What do you mean, how much did I fetch? Well, you did say 'OK, I'm sold', so how much did you go for? irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in news:rj0e51hopvpifuv0tvl77od1219rv4joj6@ 4ax.com: >>"g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in news:1112993631.532019 >>@athnrd02: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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! ;-) SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA > > > The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com! > > > Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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! SignatureLin Chung. [The Water Margins of Liang Shan Po were at the time of the Sung dynasty. Replace that with "ntlworld" for emails.] [] > 1) In the DigitalCameraInfo review, > http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2BD258CA, under Noise Auto ISO, "When [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 > "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. SignatureJohn 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) 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? > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > 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. SignatureJohn Bean If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt (Dean Martin) > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >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. > [] > 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 > [] >> www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. SignatureJohn Bean Times fun when you're having flies (Kermit the Frog) > [] >> www.digitalcamerainfo.com has a thorough review on the FZ5 and they [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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? > 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. SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >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? > measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in news:lNe6e.198$J12.84 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >> 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. SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA >[] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >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 > > [] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 >[] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >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 > > [] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 > >[] > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > Bob B. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >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. > > 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. SignatureJohn 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) > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >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? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. >> > > The review of this camera is finally out on www.dpreview.com! >> > > Very interesting! Check out the 'Compared to' pages. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > 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. SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA Oh, also read the review at megapixel.net. All 9s and 10s for the FZ5. SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA > 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. SignaturePardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman [] > 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 >> + 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. SignatureStephen Poley >>> + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 >>>> + uses 4 rechargeable NiMH AA cells >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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. SignatureRon Hunter rphunter@charter.net 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. SignaturePardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman > I wrote: >>> Konica Minolta DiMage Z5 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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 >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 > >>> + fastest save > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 SignaturePardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman [] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > + 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 > > The Z5 even has a night movie mode. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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 SignaturePardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > The Z5 even has a night movie mode. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. SignaturePardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman [] > 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 [] >> You make a good salesman for the Z5, but without providing any facts >> to backup your claims. For example, what are the comparitive power [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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 > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > 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 > > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Have you ever did a thorough comparison between the FZ5 and the FZ20? Heh. Signaturegburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com =========================================================================== > 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/ The FZ20 is $100 more expensive, 70% heavier and 100% bigger by volume. That is a big difference. SignaturePardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >That is a big difference. > Yes, but what is the difference between the FZ20 and the FZ5 in the results they produce? Can you see any difference in the majority of photos shot under the majority of typical circumstances. [] > 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/ You are quite right - there are the obvious published differences (mainly size, hot-shoe and weight) but under normal taking I have yet to see significant difference in the results, but I have not done a full comparison. Were I to compare, I would be inclined to compare with the lens wide open at full tele and full wide. Perhaps in macro mode as well. The tele-macro setting (FZ5 only) gives you some excellent macro opportunities with a very long working distance (about 1 - 2m). Cheers, David > [] > > Have you ever did a thorough comparison between the FZ5 and the FZ20? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cheers, > David yes, I would be interested in a f2.8 long range tele comparison. The only comparisons I have noticed on dpreview are at f 5.6 and short range. Maybe the extra bit of ED glass would make a difference under these conditions. > yes, I would be interested in a f2.8 long range tele comparison. The > only comparisons I have noticed on dpreview are at f 5.6 and short > range. Maybe the extra bit of ED glass would make a difference under > these conditions. http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/P1000126-FZ5.JPG http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/P1000203-FZ20.JPG I have a suspicion that the FZ20 foucssed a little more behind the main subject than the FZ5 did...... Cheers, David > > yes, I would be interested in a f2.8 long range tele comparison. The > > only comparisons I have noticed on dpreview are at f 5.6 and short [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Cheers, > David Thanks David. To my eyes (looking at 200% in PS) the FZ5 is softer on the right hand side and about the same or a little sharper on the left hand side, but that might just be me or sample variation. The chromatic ab of the FZ20 is a little bit smaller but with a reddish tinge that sometimes makes it more noticeable than the deep blue CA of the FZ5. We don't know what tricks happen inside the camera to correct this stuff and maybe the newer FZ5 software is doing more to compensate for the lack of the Ed element or maybe the difference between f2.8 and f3.3 explains the differences??? I don't think the FZ20 focussed behind the main subject as the slightly foreground rubbish bin lid is sharper in the FZ20 shot and the roof detail is fading faster on the FZ20. Does the FZ20 clean up at all when you stop it down to f3.3 to make a direct comparison to the FZ5? Also, it would be interesting to know roughly what distance these shots were taken at. Thanks again. Bruce G Is the bottom line that if you like the lighter weight, size, balance and feel of the FZ5 better the differences are really a moot point all of the way up to letter size prints? > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > > Is the bottom line that if you like the lighter weight, size, balance > and feel of the FZ5 better the differences are really a moot point all > of the way up to letter size prints? I think that's a fair summary - but no flash hot-shoe on the FZ5. I don't think that even at a bigger print size you'd see any significant difference. Cheers, David > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >David > I pan on a Canon 20D or a Rebel XT for the most serious shooting. This will be my everyday camera. I read a review on www.megapixel.net and another on www.dpreview.com. Both said the camera is great and so far no one has an answer for it. I did download many of the sample prints at different ISO settings and printed them out using my Canon IP4000 with OEM ink on both Canon Photopaper Pro and Costco/Kirkland (Ilford?) paper. There was virtually no difference in the quality of the prints due to the choice of paper. Obviously, the FZ5 photos were taken by professionals and maybe edited in PS but it did show the best 4x6 that the combination of the Canon IP4000 and the Panasonic FZ5 could do. It was not even short of phenomenal. I have not tried an 8x10 (I am cheap) but before I do buy it I will do that. I expect to make the purchase in the middle of summer. I hope by then the price will soften a bit. Also, a new long zoom Sony will be out in June. It looks more like it would be in the same size and weight class as the FZ20 but I do want to turn over all of the stones. It is amazing because I would never consider the FZ3 and when the FZ5 was announced I still only looked at the FZ20. It was not until I help it in my hand and felt the weight and bulk did I decide not to pursue it. On the way out of the store I just help the FZ3 and it balanced great. Another camera I really like is the Fuji S3100 at around $250 and also the Fuji S5100. I like the feel of both of them and they balance well. The only thing ruling them out is NO image stabilization (IS). If they came out with a successor to those camera with IS before I buy the FZ5, I will have a major decision. The biggest drawback is the max wide angle of 36mm (35mm eqv). My widest on the Nikon is 28mm and I wish I could squeeze more out of it. However, I do have the option of buying a 21mm their. Well enjoy you FZ5 and keep reporting back; both the good, the bad, and the ugly. > [] > The biggest drawback is the max wide angle of 36mm (35mm eqv). My > widest on the Nikon is 28mm and I wish I could squeeze more out of it. > However, I do have the option of buying a 21mm their. > > Well enjoy you FZ5 and keep reporting back; both the good, the bad, > and the ugly. Just remember that the FZ5 and FZ20 images I uploaded were with the lens wide-open, so the worst possible optical quality. Typical shots at more normal apertures will be better. With my Nikon 5700 (35 - 280mm zoom) I did find that a lot of my photos were at the wide-angle end of the range, and that's why I got the Nikon 8400 (24 - 85mm). I currently envisage taking both cameras round with me on major trips, with the Nikon for wide-angle interiors or swivel finder shots. You can definitely get wide-angle adapters for the FZ20 from Panasonic, but for the FZ5 you would need to reply on 3rd-party products, which are of somewhat variable quality. However, the last thing I want to carry round are huge chunks of adapter glass which will probably be on or off the camera at exactly the wrong moment! I do hope you will soon find something to your liking. Cheers, David This is what I did. If you do the same let me know what the results you get are. First I went to www.dpreview.com and downloaded many of the test photos under the Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ5 review. I did the same uneer megapixel.net I brought each one into Photoshop and when to image size and under resolution I chose auto and best to get 133 lines per inch. I then used the cropping tool for 4x6. Going back to image size to confirm a resolution of 266 pixels per inch. I then printed them out and compared them. What I do not understand is that all of the photos from dpreview were sharper and had better clarity. They all were supposed to have been taken with an FZ5 and I assume professional photographers. If you run this test what is your take on it? >[] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > This is what I did. If you do the same let me know what the results > you get are. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If you run this test what is your take on it? I would /never/ alter the number of pixels per inch. A picture is a bitmap with a certain number of pixels - end of story. I would /never/ crop and image (for the sort of test you are suggesting). I would (probably) use Paint Shop Pro, and get it to print out each image on a full-size A4 paper (noting that this would leave some borders as the image is 1.333 aspect ratio but the paper is 1.414 [297 x 210mm]). This insistence on quoting pixels per inch must be the cause of the great majority of "lost pixels" ever! If I didn't have Paint Shop Pro, I might try IrfanView (but I've never printed from that program), or even the Windows XP Image and FAX Viewer. I don't have PS, but is sounds as if by cropping you may have reduced the number of pixels in the image, and thereby made it less sharp when printing. Forget all about DPI - use absolute numbers of pixels! In my FZ5 that's 2560 by 1920 pixels. Just print that to the full size of the paper you want. If I understood what you did, 266 pixels per inch and 6 inches wide gives just 1596 pixels across the width. The camera has 2560 - you are only using 62% of the available pixels horizontally - that's about 38% of the pixels in area! You have thrown more than half the camera pixels away. I hope my understanding is wrong, but it sounds to me as if Photoshop's presentation of the image has made you throw away more than half the pixels. Perhaps someone who knows the program can put one of us tight! Cheers, David I'm a novice digi photographer and kid's dentist starting a practice hoping to find out if the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 is what I need t take orthodontic intra oral photos. I probably need manual zoo capabilities. Any recommendations. I am also limited in budget.. -- dr. andy > I'm a novice digi photographer and kid's dentist starting a practice, > hoping to find out if the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 is what I need to > take orthodontic intra oral photos. I probably need manual zoom > capabilities. Any recommendations. I am also limited in budget... The FZ5 does not have manual zoom or manual focus. I just had my ugly mouth photographed by my dentist and I think he used a Nikon. Anyway, it might pay to talk to other dentists about this. > I'm a novice digi photographer and kid's dentist starting a practice, > hoping to find out if the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 is what I need to > take orthodontic intra oral photos. I probably need manual zoom > capabilities. Any recommendations. I am also limited in budget... Did you mean manual focus? The FZ5 does not have manual focus - for that, you'll probably want the larger FZ20, if you're staying with the Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ series. I have to say, the FZ5 does take some pretty nice macro photos, though. Not sure about intra oral photos - I haven't tried that. ;-) Do you have a group of other orthodontists that you hang out with? You might want to have a discussion about this with them - see what others are doing in your practice. Good luck. SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA For facial photos, it would be fine. It can vary the flash output so you can get nice even exposures even if very close up. For intra-oral, you'd need a ring flash - look for a Kodak which is dental specific - they sell it as some $1200 package or something to that effect. MB > I'm a novice digi photographer and kid's dentist starting a practice, > hoping to find out if the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 is what I need to > take orthodontic intra oral photos. I probably need manual zoom > capabilities. Any recommendations. I am also limited in budget... > Is the bottom line that if you like the lighter weight, size, balance > and feel of the FZ5 better the differences are really a moot point all > of the way up to letter size prints? I think that is the way I see it too. I posted my detailed comments so that somebody could correct me if I'm missing something basic. I started this line of thinking wondering if I could gain more from a FZ20 than by adding a Canon 350D body to my 5 Canon lenses/film body. (I'm starting to think maybe I should get both a FZ5 and the 350D.) Bruce [] > I started this line of thinking wondering if I could gain more from a > FZ20 than by adding a Canon 350D body to my 5 Canon lenses/film body. > (I'm starting to think maybe I should get both a FZ5 and the 350D.) I would suggest both - they are quite complementary with the DSLR providing the lower noise in low-light situations (with wide-aperture lenses and its bigger sensor) and the FZ5 providing a carry-anywhere camera (with movies) which may handle the majority of your photography, and something you don't mind taking into less favourable situations (damp, dust etc.) as it's more easily protected. You need to analyse what facilities you need most for your particular interests or requirements. Cheers, David > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >(I'm starting to think maybe I should get both a FZ5 and the 350D.) > Get the Rebel XT. I plan on that or the 20D in addition to the FZ5. But I think the FZ5 will be used much more because it is a pain in the a.s to haul around the big system. I do not use my Nikon enough. >Bruce > > [] > Thanks David. To my eyes (looking at 200% in PS) the FZ5 is softer on > the right hand side and about the same or a little sharper on the left [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Also, it would be interesting to know roughly what distance these > shots were taken at. You're welcome, Bruce. I deliberately chose white on black to show up the chromatic effects, as it is the most obvious defect with this lens range. As you say, we don't know what's happening in the camera - I only present the out-of-the-box results. I haven't the time to test the FZ20 at f/3.3, I'm afraid. I imagine it would be pretty similar to f/2.8. Distance - I would estimate 30 - 35m (with a moderate degree of error). Cheers, David > 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. Don't give gross generalities. Where are the numbers? We need numbers here. How can something be good if you don't have the numbers? I gave you my numbers where are yours??? hehehehe (; SignaturePardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman [ . . . ] > 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.asp 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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > 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! SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA > > + 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. SignaturePardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman > "g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote in news:1112993631.532019 > @athnrd02: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. > Relax, he was just referring to your saying "Ok, I'm sold!!!" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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. SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA >> Relax, he was just referring to your saying "Ok, I'm sold!!!" >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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. 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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. SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA Eric - Have you purchased a bag or case for your FZ5 yet? I just got may camera, but can't seem to find a bag designed for it yet. Thanks! Michael msgoff@gmail.com wrote in news:1114453715.357322.36600 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Eric - > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Michael Actually, I have not purchased the FZ5, yet. I was waiting for the prices to drop a bit, so I can afford more accessories, such as a bag. David Taylor has one - maybe he has a bag for it. Just wondering: Does www.panasonic.com have a bag specifically for the FZ1,2,3,4,5? I'm supposing they do, but not positive. SignatureEric Babula Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA [] > Actually, I have not purchased the FZ5, yet. I was waiting for the > prices to drop a bit, so I can afford more accessories, such as a bag. > David Taylor has one - maybe he has a bag for it. On first purchasing my FZ5 I used a Nikon 5700 bag which had become spare! However, I am now proposing to go for a small "camera system" bag (rather than a snug camera-only bag) which will take the Nikon 8400 as well as the Panasonic FZ5, lenshood, batteries etc. I've tried carrying this new bag for a day as a shoulder bag and it's fine - much smaller and lighter than any of my 35mm "camera system" bags and their contents. The new bag cost just GPB 10 (about $19). Cheers, David >[] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >David > Is that a waist band fanny pack that will work? > [] > Is that a waist band fanny pack that will work? It's this item: http://www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?PRODUCT=JESTCCBMBL&BRAND=&CONTINUE =false&FEATS=&FIRSTPRICE=&KEYWORD=&LEVEL=&MODELNUMBER=&NEWQUERY=True&NODE=255&OR D=ASC&ORDERBY=&QUANTITY=10&RECENT=0&REFINE=&SEARCH_FOR=&SEARCHNODE=0&SEARCHURL=d ointellisearch.cfm&SECONDPRICE=&SHOWCASEID=&STARTROW=1&SUBS=&WORD_SEARCH=N& Shoulder bag. I was wrong about the price, GBP 15, USD 28.50 David |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message |