I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
Thanks for info
carrera d'olbani - 20 May 2007 16:36 GMT
On May 21, 12:21 am, anira...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
> Thanks for info
I brushed both FZ30 and FZ7 aside, and got LX1. I was concerned with
the pocketability of the camera in the first intance.
Stan Beck - 20 May 2007 18:22 GMT
If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7 megapixel
will give overall better results than the 10 megapixel, which will have
considerably more noise in the image, and will produce generally poorer
results hat higher ISO settings. Since a 4" x 6" print only requires 2
megapixels for a good print, the 7 megapixel is more than enough.

Signature
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***
>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
> Thanks for info
aniramca@gmail.com - 21 May 2007 05:36 GMT
> If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7 megapixel
> will give overall better results than the 10 megapixel, which will have
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> To reply, remove 101 from address.
> ***
I forgot to mention another difference between the Fz8 and Fz50 -
Fz50's sensor is larger than the Fz8's ( 1/1.8" vs 1/2.5")
Stan Beck - 21 May 2007 13:07 GMT
I think you will find this interesting reading:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/

Signature
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***
>> If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7
>> megapixel
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> I forgot to mention another difference between the Fz8 and Fz50 -
> Fz50's sensor is larger than the Fz8's ( 1/1.8" vs 1/2.5")
Jeff R. - 21 May 2007 09:05 GMT
>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
> Thanks for info
FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
any large Panasonic.
--
Jeff R.
(no kidding - its *horrible*)
SelfImporantName - 21 May 2007 10:34 GMT
>>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
>any large Panasonic.
Which just goes to prove: In talented hands nearly any camera can produce a fine
work of art. A pinhole camera made from a cardboard-box, a bit of foil or tin
snipped from a sardine-can, and some B&W sheet film can produce publishable
works of art -- in the right hands.
In common untalented hands even a good camera with Leica optics is a piece of
crap.
99.999% of the time the fault lies within, they just don't have the courage to
find a mirror and come to that blatant conclusion.
I think newer digital cameras should have a "Twit Detector" mode built in. Every
time an idiot tries to use the camera it would announce: "Hey idiot! You don't
have a clue how to take a decent photo, do you! Before you blame yet another
decent camera for your lack of talent, be a good boy and hand me over to someone
that knows how to do real photography. At least be smart enough to do that
much."
Then it would shut itself down and not be able to be turned on again until they
gave up possession of it. If they can make autos with a breathalyzer built-in
before you can start the engine, I think it only fair there should be something
like that on all high-end cameras too. Think of how many people's eyesight would
be saved from having to view their photographic eyesores at every turn. There
should be a law against people who can't handle a camera properly. They are an
affront to my right to find happiness. That alone is a huge crime of theirs.
bgsosh@gmail.com - 21 May 2007 12:48 GMT
> <anira...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Jeff R.
> (no kidding - its *horrible*)
I strongly dissagree. I owned an FZ30 for a while before moving to a
dSLR. I found it a great camera to use - easily the best P&S I've
owned - and got some nice shots with it. It's got a decent lens and
good controls that give quick access to most settings. The only major
gripe I had with it is the high level of noise from the sensor (or
associated major artifacts from the Noise reduction in the camera).
However this does not normally affect standard prints really - it's of
most concern when trying to shoot in low light (which is this camera
is very bad at) or when printing at large sizes. This camera (and the
FZ50) offers a lot of great features (including v good optical IS/VR),
and a build standard higher than many entry level dSLRs - calling it a
POS is just OTT. What were your specific problems with it? (I assume
it was noise/noise reduction related).
S
Stan Beck - 21 May 2007 13:10 GMT
I have a Panasonic FZ10, and it's a great little camera, for it's class, and
was better than most of the comparable cameras of that time. But I can't
really compare it to my Nikon D200. Naturally, my D200 photos are better.

Signature
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***
>> <anira...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> S
Chris Morriss - 21 May 2007 20:54 GMT
>>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>Jeff R.
>(no kidding - its *horrible*)
I have to differ here. The only two complaints I have with my FZ30 is
that the zoom ought to equate to a 28-300mm rather than the 35-420mm
that it is. It would be useful to have more wide-angle capability, as
the extreme telephoto length never gets used. The other problem is a
tendency to purple-fringing on some high-contrast parts of a picture.
Overall, it's still among the best prosumer wide-range zoom cameras.

Signature
Chris Morriss
Paul Allen - 22 May 2007 16:30 GMT
> I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
You apparently missed most of the differences between the two cameras.
The larger FZ50 has more room for external controls like a real
mechanically-linked zoom ring and a focus-by-wire ring on the lens,
an external switch to control the focus mode, dials for adjusting
aperture and shutter in manual modes, and probably several more.
The cost for the extra features is more bulk and dollars. You get
to choose.
Note that both of the cameras you're looking at have small sensors
that will suffer in low light and have lots of noise at high ISO
settings. I bought an FZ30 a year ago when the choice was against
the FZ7 (or was it the FZ6?). Other than wishing Panasonic hadn't
pushed it all the way to 8MP, I'm fairly happy with the camera.
Paul Allen
Michael J Davis - 24 May 2007 09:47 GMT
aniramca@gmail.com observed
>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
>and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
I've had an FZ3, an FZ5 and now an FZ50.
The lens on each is brilliant throughout the zoom range.
I've been happy with the FZ5, but wanted manual focus, direct zoom,
external flash shoe. I understand the FZ8 has included two of these
options. It is happy (with post processing) to produce A3+ photos.
However the FZ50 is stunning (although I sent the first one back because
it emitted a low whine when on), and I am delighted. But compared with
the FZ5, it IS heavy. I'm keeping the FZ5 for backpacking and long
walks.
But in film cameras I lugged a huge number of (fixed) lenses around and
never had the right lens on the camera or had left it behind to save
weight. So I am not going to SLR now.
From what you describe, I'd recommend the FZ8 - if you don't know why
the FZ50 is better for you, buy the FZ8!
HIH
Mike

Signature
Michael J Davis
Now with added pictures on http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman
<><
Even Photographic newsgroups sometimes lose perspective.
<><