Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Panasonic DMC-FZ47 preview samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Aug 3, 2011 at 01:31 GMT

Just Posted: Panasonic DMC-FZ47 preview real-world samples gallery. We've had Panasonic's latest FZ-series superzoom for the past few days. The FZ47 (FZ48 in Europe) is based around a 12MP CCD sensor and offers a 24x zoom, covering a range equivalent to a 25-600mm lens. We shot in a variety of situations, including a floodlit football match, to show what that combination can and can't do. We've also prepared a series of images at all the camera's different ISO settings and taken test shots using several of its noise reduction settings, to give a feel for the image quality options available on this JPEG-only model.

There are 32 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. A reduced size image (within 1024 x 1024 bounds) is provided to be more easily viewed in your browser. As always the original untouched image is available by selecting the 'Original' link under each photo.

Panasonic DMC-FZ47 Preview Samples Gallery - Posted 02 August 2011
7
I own it
2
I want it
5
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 28
pzgmail
By pzgmail (Aug 10, 2011)

I use the older DMC-ZS1 for grab shots when I cannot take my Canon 40D. Some shots are great while others are not so great. But one must - and I say again, must - recognize that this type of camera is for capturing memories, not competition quality images. Yes color can be off and there can be noise but software can take care of some of this. My conclusion is that this type of camera is perfect for getting the shot you would otherwise miss.

0 upvotes
kretinaceo
By kretinaceo (Aug 3, 2011)

It's completely disgusting. I only see artifacts and blotches everywhere. Crappy IQ. Panasonic is on the loose, they don't care about terms such IQ anymore.

2 upvotes
Bokeh_freak
By Bokeh_freak (Aug 3, 2011)

The Olympus SZ-30MR also has 24x zoom but in a pocketable body. Game over.

2 upvotes
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (Aug 3, 2011)

SZ-30's image quality is worse than FZ48. Game over ... ;-)

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 3, 2011)

SP-810 UZ not invited to the game at all? No need to see any comparisons of all models' pictures or video? The HX100 and respective Nikon, Fuji, Canon, and other super zoom contenders should play in the same match. If "pocketability" were to attain its own score box, would cargo pant pockets count?

0 upvotes
Bokeh_freak
By Bokeh_freak (Aug 3, 2011)

If you want image quality, the fuji HS20 EXR is better than the fz48 and has raw to boot.

0 upvotes
Tapan Debnath
By Tapan Debnath (Aug 3, 2011)

Photography blog has posted 'review' on it!

0 upvotes
Condor
By Condor (Aug 3, 2011)

I would like to see real superzoom subjects as distant birds and animals, plains and similars (as in airshows), to be able to compare with the one that won the real users side-by-side comparison last year, the Canon SX30IS, which is the camera that I bought. I would like to see real-life subjects side-by-side comarisons of that Canon and all new super zooms; Olympus, Sony, Panasonic,etc.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 3, 2011)

Perhaps a stuffed bird (or toy) on a distant fence post would suffice. Wild creatures may not show up on time or repeat an aerial stunt for each camera. Air shows are too infrequent, require tickets, logistical preparation, many hours to attend, and may be cancelled or delayed due to weather.

2 upvotes
Condor
By Condor (Aug 3, 2011)

Thanks for your input. I wasn't thinking in BIF at all (birds inflight. Since I know superzoom cameras just can't manage them yet, as GH2 can't either. I was thinking in normal distant birds perched, on land, on water, on city objects. And almost all cities in the world have several places were they use to stay and even live. In London cases there are several parks and St. James Park is close enough to almost everywhere. All big cities have permanent Airshows called "airports". No big professional effort is needed to provide thousands or millions people around the world with usefull superzoom camera samples, specially if you are paid for that and for increase Amazon sales. If dpreview can´t, just send me the cameras and I will published detailed real life side-by-side detailed comparisons at full zoom of real superzoom subjects.

2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 3, 2011)

Dpreview is on-target when it uses a flood-lit or dusk sports event to test ultra-zooms. Full zoom shots of any urban object, or test target, at 100 yards or meters might also serve, although not provide the challenge of motion. Telephoto shots of wildlife might be an alternative, but birds and beasts don't always keep appointments, nor is it easy to round up a flock of antsy kids for a test zoom photo.

Unless the 600mm or 800mm tele equivalent zoom features perform where they are apt to be needed most, there is no reason to buy a super zoom, since there are compact, cheaper alternatives.

Addition of RAW format would be irrelevant to this niche. Few users would ever need the bulky files, and even those who pretend otherwise would soon learn the futility of prettifying blurry or dull zoom pictures, which one can also "tart up" (if only so-so) in JPEG.

Mustn't good low light shots of sports events shot from the sidelines, close to the action, with a monopod. T or F?

1 upvote
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Aug 3, 2011)

What a shame, so many sensor generations and still the poor noise level.

2 upvotes
Neoasphalt
By Neoasphalt (Aug 4, 2011)

When manufacturers will start the megapixel race in opposite direction, then you'll see low noise. With 6MP it could be good low light camera, as many other small sensor ones.

0 upvotes
Keith Reeder
By Keith Reeder (Aug 5, 2011)

Are people still so clueless that they equate pixel density with noise?

/More pixels *does not* mean more noise.

0 upvotes
Bokeh_freak
By Bokeh_freak (Aug 7, 2011)

Pixel density does mean more noise because the smaller the pixel the less light absorbed.

0 upvotes
Tapan Debnath
By Tapan Debnath (Aug 3, 2011)

I think it will be good to wait for full review and thereafter leave comments on it.

0 upvotes
yuyucheu
By yuyucheu (Aug 3, 2011)

Look these photos. someone just click click camera.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 3, 2011)

A sports spectator can't always ask the players to pose or give advance notice of a spectacular moment.

0 upvotes
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (Aug 3, 2011)

Unfortunately, dpreview didn't give us ISO 100 samples at NR=low, preferably landscape shots.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 3, 2011)

Perhaps the laws of optics can't be gamed, other than by NR. ISO 100 requires slow shutter in low light, hence blur. IS0 800 allows faster shutter, but entails noise. Long zoom also means less aperture or one heckuva large and expensive lens. Mid-day provides more light, allowing for low ISO, but is too sunny or hot, or involves too much back-lighting, glare, or conflicts with work hours so far as sports events go.

0 upvotes
ponyman
By ponyman (Aug 3, 2011)

To my eyes these pictures are very disappointing.

1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Aug 3, 2011)

Heavy NR even on ISO 100 at the studio, at higher ISO even worse. Effective resolution is ~1600*1200. I had old Sony H2 (12x zoom, 6MP) for many years, this new Panasonic is not better in IQ.

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Aug 3, 2011)

Even though some shots do not lend themselves to pixel peeping, the ISO 1600 shot of Wayne Rooney for example looks very, very good given what type of camera this is. In fact it's as good as a DSLR of yesteryear I'd say. Full test will be interesting, as will the new Olympus.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 3, 2011)

Since the average DSLR owner cannot afford super lenses (or be allowed to bring one into the stadium), the question is how one shot with a 250mm lens at F6 might compare, when cropped, to the sample you cite.

0 upvotes
Gary S
By Gary S (Aug 3, 2011)

Nice to see photos posted from this new camera so soon. Thanks you guys!

1 upvote
stevetexas
By stevetexas (Aug 3, 2011)

Agree with Mssimo that IQ is okay for this genre. While Mssimo will compare with the new Olympus superzoom, I'm anxious to do a side-by-side with Sony's HX100.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Aug 3, 2011)

Image quality looks ok for a super zoom. These super zooms are going a little on the crazy side. I want to see the new Olympus SP-810UZ with 36x Optical. (24-864MM EQUIVALENT) Retail only $329US lol

Crazy

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 3, 2011)

$329 is indeed a remarkably low price, considering that an DSC H1 sold for $425 in 2005, or that a half-decent 400m DSLR lens alone will cost 3X or 4X that price.

The most efficient way to review the super zooms is to take six competing models to the same night or dusk game, and compare their hand-held results from the same stadium seats. Alternatively, the subject could be a billboard with text at 200 yards, either at late day or (if llluminated) at night.

Comparisons based on macro shots of flowers might be cute, but besides the point.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 28