Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Review

By dpreview staff on Nov 17, 2012 at 00:05 GMT
Buy on GearShop

We've just published a review of Panasonic's flagship super-zoom camera, the Lumix DMC-FZ200. The FZ200 goes back to its roots, offering a constant-aperture zoom range, like the FZs of old, but in most other respects it's similar to its well-regarded predecessor the FZ150. Features include a 12MP MOS sensor with a maximum ISO sensitivity of 6400, Raw shooting, and automatic panorama and HDR modes. We collaborated with Jeff Keller of the Digital Camera Resource Page to bring you this review of the FZ200, which includes plenty of studio and real-world testing, and a 48-image samples gallery. 

317
I own it
58
I want it
36
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

Comments

Total comments: 177
JohnDWewege
By JohnDWewege (Jan 16, 2013)

Have a look at the (reputable) reviews on the internet and you will find that the Panasonic FZ200 is the best bridge camera currently available.
It is by no means perfect, but incorporating everything that is suggested in the comments below, will increase the price drastically.You cannot compare the FZ200 with a DSLR or a "prosumer" compact with a larger sensor such as the G15. Its like comparing apples with pears!
Show me a camera with a 1/2.3" sensor and at least a 600mm reach that performs better and have better specs/features. The FZ200 must be the best bridge camera for action photography (sports and wildlife)

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Nafees A Bazmi
By Nafees A Bazmi (Dec 24, 2012)

i owned and used FZ30 and no regrets about having it... is has a superb macro capability, nice shots at every length of the zoom... but felt sorry about the fps.. very slow..
in FZ200 it has been raised and i think all should be the best...
maybe u had a diff experience.
thumbs up for u :)

0 upvotes
noldus45
By noldus45 (Dec 5, 2012)

The FZ200 is very overestimated.
I own several zoom camera's from different manufactors and with all of them (some from 2003) I can make bright and sharp beautifull photo's.
Until now I still have to figure out a way to make my first decent photo with my FZ200 which is sharp and bright. It is allmost impossible with the freaking noise it produces. Van Gogh could have learned from this cam, it produces paintings! I really tried from all poses in all weather and all possibillities (over 5000 pics), but I must conclude this cam is my first bad buy.
For the zoom, don't bother unless you only want to spy without taking the photo. Yes zoom can be fun, but it doesn't produce usefull pictures. I had my doubts in front, going over 18X. And Boy was I right!
I really regret I bought it and I presume the Canon SX50 will be much of the same.
Too much megapixels and useless ISO will produce only noise. Even from ISO 160. Anyone want to buy it from me?

3 upvotes
Oltymphotoham
By Oltymphotoham (Feb 24, 2013)

The F2.8 images are breathtaking sharp. The image stabilization amazing. The noise people refer to in FZ200 images I am not seeing. Is the FZ200 better than the FZ150? The F2.8 allows images FZ150 or other bridge cameras can't take. It has better ergonomics. The FZ150 has better higher F stop images. All in all the camera is a great value. F2.8 portraits outdoor look wonderful with beautiful bokeh. To those image takers who are experiencing noise, try resetting the settings, set A at F2.8 and fire away, noise will probably disappear. Avoid pixel peeping, this camera has a small sensor and will have more inherent noise than APS sensor.

1 upvote
johnjzhu28
By johnjzhu28 (Dec 2, 2012)

After read the review, I think the SX50hs will be the best super zoom camera. There are big difference between 600mm and 1200mm focus length. It is the first importment parameter in super zoom class.

0 upvotes
Oltymphotoham
By Oltymphotoham (Feb 24, 2013)

It is the best and only 50X bridge camera. However, it is best for outdoor use. It's a great birding camera, best in class. For low light, not so good, the F stop starts too high to allow much zooming without use of flash or high ISO.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 28, 2012)

Why no usual DR charts? Why there is no resolution charts at wide and long ends as you do for lenses, after all there is a lens here, and it is the only one for the camera.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 25, 2012)

I think that for those out there who are dead-set convinced that no modern camera sensor needs to be any larger than 1/2.33-inch diagonal, this FZ200 is indeed as good of a digital camera as any.

1 upvote
aleware
By aleware (Nov 23, 2012)

Gold award.........IQ no ! ...... The Dpreview eyes is good?

0 upvotes
Christian Grevstad
By Christian Grevstad (Nov 20, 2012)

Very nice.

0 upvotes
wyoming
By wyoming (Nov 20, 2012)

maybe it's the best superzoom camera on the market (exept for the price), but in my opinion on this kind of camera it's mandatory to use AA batteries.
i'd never considered to buy a superzoom, i have never needed a 24X lens on a camera wich is bigger than a mirrorless but has a compact sensor.
but if i try to see the piont to buy a superzoom i imagine someone that goes in a remote place and must stay as light as possible (or he could bring a panasonic gh+ a tele lens).
in this situation it's ridiculous to force to have a spare battery in the pocket.

0 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (Nov 20, 2012)

Think that you'd see the point if you tried one of the better superzooms yourself. Having a 25-600mm equivalent zoom (or 24-1200mm on the SX50) is very useful and great fun too, and the IQ you get will most often be more than 'good enough'. I'm using a superzoom as my main camera now, and my DSLRs and all the expensive lenses are just collecting dust (I do miss my UWA lens a bit though).

1 upvote
Giromondo
By Giromondo (Nov 21, 2012)

As AA batteries usually have much shorter life than the dedicated rechargeables, you would need to carry spare AA's with you. Also, the AA's are heavier and bulkier (which also makes the camera heavier and bulkier) so I always prefer a camera with a proper rechargeable battery. What I really want though is the option of charging via a USB connection so I can use mains, car, solar or external battery pack for charging.

3 upvotes
wyoming
By wyoming (Nov 21, 2012)

i never tried a superzoom with a iq better than a standard compact. today many compacts has 15-20X zoom and they can fit in a pocket, you only loose the wiewfinder.
i have a mirrorless, it weights around 350gr with the lens and if i need a 90-300 it weights another 200g.
so i'd buy a superzoom only if i have to go in a place when i need at the same time a 24 and a 500mm and i can't change the lens... so i go and i have to take the spare battery or i run out of electricity! a modern AA lithium goes up to 2200m/Ah while most of the proper battery are between 600 and 1500m/Ah so the AA also have LONGER life.
my old casio still takes good pics, but i had to replace it because the battery is gone and i can't buy another one.

0 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (Nov 21, 2012)

AA batteries are just 1.2v and the lithium batteries are 7.4 v. You'll have to take that into consideration too if comparing battery life.

3 upvotes
Andrew McP
By Andrew McP (Nov 22, 2012)

Until I got a Canon DSLR I'd chosen all my cameras so I could use AA batteries. But now I'm weaned off my AAdiction. Lithium cells are incredibly impressive, and I buy cheap backup batteries... mainly because they hardly ever get used! :-)

1 upvote
wallbreaker
By wallbreaker (Nov 19, 2012)

panasonic always have problem with their sensor producing noise even at lower ISO

0 upvotes
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 19, 2012)

Show me a camera with a 1/2.3" sensor and at least a 600mm reach that performs significantly better (i.e. proof using objective tests), and I'll give you props.

Otherwise, I have to wonder why the trolls come out any time Panasonic wins anything. This wouldn't happen if it were Nikon or Canon, and I have to tell you, that I like Panasonic cameras a lot more than Canon or Nikon.

I frankly don't understand this unwarranted bashing of anything other than Canikon when it's blatantly obvious that these two companies have been outclassed in a lot of compact camera categories by both Sony and Panasonic.

The two biggest areas where Panasonic outclasses both Canon and Nikon are in video and autofocus. Not to mention that Panasonic has managed to create perhaps the best lens ever on a bridge camera.

5 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Nov 20, 2012)

Oh yes...
And Canons have issues in white clipping...
And Fujis in fringing...
And Sonys in rendering colors (mainly the green)...
And Olys in their engines...
And Nikons in speed to say the least
but after all there is always something is better than the others...
Isn't it?

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 19, 2012)

I compared it to the new Nikon 7700. What's the problem with the Panny? Both JPEGs or Raws, the detail is missing, the noise is higher. The IQ of this camera is really horrible, unless DPR did something wrong with it. Or maybe the sensor here is much smaller, is that correct?

Barney, is this IQ really worth of an 80% score, even for a compact camera?

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 19, 2012)

It's not just about IQ. A big part of the reason why the FZ200 got such a good score (and bear in mind that scoring is relative to product category, and the P7700 is in a different one) is that it has an excellent lens, is nice and quick, handles really well, and offers Raw mode.

1 upvote
Edlolim
By Edlolim (Nov 19, 2012)

rhlpetrus, it's a good bridge camera overall but unfortunately Pana's dropped the ball big time regarding the "new" sensor that's all, it's a noise machine even at ISO 200/good light, one has to find the way around it to minimize this issue and try to get an... ok pic. So yes, IQ suffers!!!
It seems to have a lot of copy variation too, some folks post good pics but the majority can not replicate those results with same cond/settings. Go figure :)

2 upvotes
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 19, 2012)

First of all, the Nikon P7700 is in a different class. It has a larger sensor but much lower zoom range. By the same token, the Sony RX100 is in a different class to the P7700. It has a larger sensor but a lower zoom range. The larger sensor would be expected to produce a better image quality, but if you're in the market for a long zoom, the FZ200 may be a better choice.

Frankly, I don't understand the point of a camera like the P7700, G15, or LX7, because the RX100 has outclassed them all, and the zoom range isn't much lower.

But the FZ200 is a whole different category (600mm vs 200mm), and people should know better.

Furthermore, look at the video quality of the FZ200 and compare it to the P7700. There's no comparison. It's as good as any still camera on the market with a 672mm reach. The P7700 and G15 can't compete here.

Show me a camera with a 600mm reach or higher with this type of compact form factor that performs better. Absent that, please do some research before talking.

2 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Nov 23, 2012)

With the P7700 at $450 and the RX100 at $650, seems like there is room for it.

0 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Nov 19, 2012)

I have played with one FZ200, this is the best Bridge camera ever made.

Well done Panasonic Lumix, having such a zoom with constant f/2.8 and the other features is great.

6 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 19, 2012)

What makes you think it is the best when it has the worst feature on it? Using motorized superzoom camera is like eating cob corn on a stick. If I were to rate this toy, I will give it bronze-crap only for having a constant aperture. IQ is just average and has a toy-ish size and design.

2 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Nov 19, 2012)

You are just trolling.

7 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 19, 2012)

Then you are hallucinating if you call this toy the best. I would not give up the huge advantage of manual zoom over that slow moving constant mushy lens.

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Nov 21, 2012)

jc go buy one or put a lid on it.

Sheesh man, have you no shame?

0 upvotes
spigot
By spigot (Nov 19, 2012)

Instead of individual camera reviews a 3-way shootout between the flagship superzooms; FZ200, SX50 and the XS1(with fixed sensor/firmware) would have been very interesting to read, ideally with side by side comparisons in studio and real life situations. Of course, dpr's studio comparison tool is very good for studio comparisons but real life photos would be far more revealing of what differences to expect in daily use of each camera.

This would also be something none of the other sites/blogs have attempted in an exhaustive format. In fact I would like to see the same type of comparisons done with the RX100/LX7/XZ-2/G1X/X10 or RX1/X100/DP2M etc.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
AngelicBeaver
By AngelicBeaver (Nov 19, 2012)

I find it sad that Optical Zoom became the next megapixel race. I had the FZ20, and it was a great learner camera: 12x optical zoom, 5 MP, constant F2.8 aperture, and Image stabilization. Then came the FZ30 with a little more zoom and an aperture that darkened on the long end. Wrong way, I thought.

I drop out for a while and when I look up again, all these superzooms are coming with 26x, 30x, 36x optical zooms! I thought, just like the MP wars, this is targeted for people who don't know anything except more "X" is better (X = MP, optical zoom, etc.). 12x vs. 30x? 30x is better. 5mp vs 12mp? 12mp wins.

Give me 8-10 megapixels, 12x optical zoom, constant fast aperture, and clean ISO 80-800 (perfect at 80, good at 800) and I'd say you had a killer superzoom.

Of course these cameras have lens issues. Too much optical zoom. My mother in law bought one (26x Nikon) and took it to Ireland. Every zoomed pic she took looked like crap and she never could figure out why.

3 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 19, 2012)

Look no more, X-S1 is what you are looking for. Far superior and deserving than this toy.

1 upvote
aris14
By aris14 (Nov 20, 2012)

My congratulations for your overall appearance here.
Maybe the best trolling I' ve ever seen in tenths of forums no matter the content...
Cheers!

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 25, 2012)

Fujifilm X-S1 is now (finally) great for still photography. Still horrendous for video and continuous focusing. The 26x range Fujinon zoom lens on the X-S1 is the cheapest constructed lens from the lowest quality materials that company had likely ever made.

Panny Lumix DMC-FZ200 is just okay for still pix, phenomenal for video. But it only has a minuscule 1/2.33-inch sensor, which is a loooong way down from the X-S1' 2/3rd-inch sensor size. After all, all top-end professional shoulder-mountable video camcorders also use 2/3rd-inch sensors, and nothing larger than 2/3rd inch.

What would be best for us is a clever combination of the two. Personally, since I like taking videos after dark and indoors in limited lighting scenarios, the 1/2.33-inch sensor size simply won't cut it. 2/3rd-inch or larger, please.

1 upvote
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Nov 18, 2012)

Wondering when Canon Flashes are dedicated to this camera (full controle, not only triggering) Please Panasonic corparate with Canon on this.

0 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Nov 19, 2012)

Why would they bother? They'd much rather sell a canon camera to you.

1 upvote
Russell Fielding
By Russell Fielding (Nov 18, 2012)

Bit surprised at a gold award for a camera that is noisy even at low ISOs.

For me, IQ is easily the most important thing in a camera. Other things matter of course but not as much as that. I'd be very reluctant to give any camera a gold award that doesn't even have good IQ at 100.

5 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Nov 19, 2012)

Gold award does not always = $3000 Camera

2 upvotes
Alexis D
By Alexis D (Nov 19, 2012)

Gold is cheap these days.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 19, 2012)

I agree, the IQ of this camera is horrible, JPEGs or RAW.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 25, 2012)

"Bit surprised at a gold award for a camera that is noisy even at low ISOs."

If you have to ask how much such lofty honors actually cost -- you probably cannot afford them, anyhow. :-))

Anyhow, FZ200 is great for videos, alas it would not be my first choice for still pix, however. Unfortunately, even for videography, the minuscule sensor size is drastically limits its usefulness. Sony RX100 may not have the zoom range of the FZ200, but at least you can shoot pretty decent videos with it after dark and indoors w/o a whole lot of light.

0 upvotes
jr
By jr (Nov 18, 2012)

When comparing fz150 RAW with fz200, it seems there are lens issues with fz200. For example the watch at the bottom right corner is clearly better with fz150. At the center they are very close though.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Nov 18, 2012)

If it is an 1"CCD with a 24x; constant F2.8 Leica lens.... then I would love it.

0 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (Nov 18, 2012)

Not so sure that you'd love the size, weight and price of such a camera.

5 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Nov 18, 2012)

Hope the new technologies will significantly reduce the size and weight...
For sure, must be prepared to pay higher price for such a camera.

0 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (Nov 20, 2012)

New technologies can't change physics, no matter how much you want to spend. Constant f2.8 on a superzoom would make it HUGE.

0 upvotes
bakhtyar kurdi
By bakhtyar kurdi (Nov 18, 2012)

I ask everyone to go to the image compare page, select FZ200 JPEG in one window and FZ200 RAW in another window, now you will see clearly with your eyes that the JPEG is better by around %40 , much more resolution and better color and contrast, RAW images are really horrible compared to JPEG from the same camera, now I ask you to go to the conclusion page and for your surprise you see that they rated the RAW quality around %30 better than JPEG (much longer green line for RAW) this is where they mislead or brainwash you, and that is how they give golden award to some cameras.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Nov 18, 2012)

It's meaningless to say that the JPEGs are better than the raw images from the same camera. After all, they have been derived from the raw files through in-camera raw conversion, which means that, if you shoot raw and post-process the images, it's possible to achieve at least as good IQ as the camera's JPEG engine. It all depends on your skills, and on which raw converter you use.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
RadPhoto
By RadPhoto (Nov 18, 2012)

You have no idea what you're talking about! Revenant is right

0 upvotes
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 18, 2012)

The JPEG quality could never be rated higher than the RAW quality by any competent reviewer, as others have mentioned.

But, I hope that the facts don't get in the way of the constant and unremitting whining I've read in response to the FZ200 review.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 18, 2012)

Ahem, DPReview specifically process their raw files with no noise reduction or colour processing to give a better idea of the base quality. Remember that the in-camera jpeg is rendered from exactly the same raw file, and by adjusting the settings you can make the raw image look like the jpeg (or better), but you can never process the jpeg to look like the raw file.

Also the raw file clearly has better fine detail, just compare the face on the banknote in raw and jpeg.

2 upvotes
bakhtyar kurdi
By bakhtyar kurdi (Nov 18, 2012)

(The JPEG quality could never be rated higher than the RAW quality by any competent reviewer, as others have mentioned)
who told you that? go to this page and see that they rated JPEG much more higher than RAW
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x10/20

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 19, 2012)

JPEG is still very poor, compare it to the Nikon P7700. Noise is very visible or smeared to death.

0 upvotes
akula57
By akula57 (Jan 23, 2013)

Perhaps the JPEG ratings are in comparison with other similar cameras (SX50?) not with the RAW ratings.

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 18, 2012)

Cut the crap DPR. Review the real thing.

Get the new X-S1 (with the new sensor). Review it side-by-side with this toy.

State the advantages and disadvantages of each feature (brighter lens, manual zoom, motorized zoom, larger sensor, EVF etc.)

If you can't do it, you will just prove again to us your bias toward Panasonic and Canon superzoom.

1 upvote
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 18, 2012)

Even if the X-S1 were better regarding stills quality, it will never compete with the Panny for video, image stabilization, or autofocus.

The whole world of DPR seems to revolve around just one metric, but there's more to a camera than this.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 18, 2012)

I'm sure they'll release an X-S1 review in good time, but don't forget that at the tele end the Panasonic is f2.8 and the Fuji is f5.6, 2 stops slower.

1 upvote
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (Nov 18, 2012)

An entry level DSLR like the D3200 also looks like a (small) toy, standing side by side with the X-S1. I don't see any bias towards Canon superzooms. No reviews of the the SX30 and SX40, and no testshots in the Studio comparison tool (but the SX50 has just been added, thanks for that).

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 18, 2012)

@Beach: You maybe right about those things but the handling,ergonomics, sensor size, EVF and manual zoom are the things as equally or more important than those.

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 18, 2012)

@Andy:

I can shoot at full 720mm handheld at 1/20s and f/5.6 and still hit the shot without blur so do I always need than fancy f/2.8? Sure you can shoot at faster shutter speed and lower ISO but with X-S1, you can with higher ISO and slightly slower shutter speed and still produce better result than FZ200.

0 upvotes
Rmano
By Rmano (Nov 18, 2012)

I could even agree, IF it where possible to know if the X-S1 you are buying has the new sensor or the fault one. Is there a way? There is a nice X10 on the shelf of a shop near where I work, but no way to know it - the shopkeeper doesn't even know there are two versions.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Nov 18, 2012)

Why too concern on comparisons?
It really means nothing when you take into account of the differences in price, specification, lens quality, sensor quality.... and lot others.
If you like Fuji, then buy Fuji. If others like Canon or Nikon then they will buy what they like.

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 18, 2012)

@Edmond: It is not about being concerned to push that comparison. FZ200 is not even superior than FZ150, SX40 and HS30 in IQ. It just that DPR is continuously ignoring to review the X-S1 when it should be so easy for them to get a sample from Fuji.

0 upvotes
GregGory
By GregGory (Nov 18, 2012)

Edmond, JC already has an X-S1 - so he should be out shooting the cr@p out of it - and insist on ignoring the fundamental differences. For starters, the FZ200 is heavier than ideal, but the X-S1 is a whopping 2lb+ (!)... In other words, it's up in the weight class of hybrids w. superzooms, or even a Drebel with Tamrom 18-270.

A review of the X-S1 would be welcomed, but the conspiracies due to the lack of it is rather amusing - actually - more like annoying.

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Nov 20, 2012)

No matter what we are saying here, DPR makes an annual or so review (comparison test)the last 3 or 4 years with all bridge super zoom cams and guess...
They got it all right...
And yes... Pana and Canon usually take the awards...
Usually Pana and that is right by all means...
Fuji are great cams and innovative, but when I saw the purple fringing some two years ago in the cam of then days I was deeply disappointed...
And I loved the specs of that cam, but one way or another it's all about a lens mostly when we talk about photography...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 18, 2012)

While having such lens is great, combined with that sensor its not that amazing. Problem is that if you enlarge sensor, you need bigger lens. But, if you do it clever way - big sensor, low mpix - then you could combine it with F4 lens and still have reasonably big lens.

But then, what stops customer to buy m4/3s and get some slower lens? :)

Fact is that superzooms are dying breed, which are closely followed by most point-n-shoot cams. In not so distant future, ppl will use mirrorless compact systems or cellphones. Era of regular point and shoots and superzooms is pretty much over..

1 upvote
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 18, 2012)

Nonsense.

If superzooms were to die, then we've actually lost something that can't be replaced by any other technology.

Have you ever heard of the concept of video? Name me anything better that the consumer can buy for quality video with this type of range and image stabilization.

Hint: you won't find anything.

What's going to replace it? DSLRs? The fact is that DSLRs neither have the range, the autofocus capability, nor the image stabilization of this type of camera.
'
Are we all going to be limited to smartphones for our video when compacts die out? Yeah, no loss there.

I keep hearing stuff like this on this forum, but the truth is that most members here live in a very limited world that doesn't recognize the utility of cameras like these. Sad.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 18, 2012)

I'm a bit tempted by this camera, many on the strength of it's very good video quality, but ultimately I think I'd prefer a camera like the Nikon P7700, where I'd sacrifice the large zoom range of the FZ200 for better IQ of the P7700.

3 upvotes
averagjoe
By averagjoe (Nov 18, 2012)

But without an optical viewfinder the Nikon is pretty much useless in bright outdoor light.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 19, 2012)

Agree, the P7700 is the cream of compacts at this point, in terms of lens and IQ. Re VF, I use the Nikon V1 and only now and then need the VF. But agree it could be useful in some situations. But the point is, this camera has horrible IQ, JPEGs or RAWs.

0 upvotes
Peanut88
By Peanut88 (Nov 17, 2012)

I will be the first one to buy if the next model have :
1 Touch screen
2 Sensor size 1/1.7 "
3 LCD Screen Resolution 921K
4 Eye sensor to switch between EVF & LCD Display
5 Increased internal memory to be more than 70 MB
6 Reduce red eye problem & edit tool

4 upvotes
Mirfak
By Mirfak (Nov 17, 2012)

+1. Also, add electronic level and make sure that the sensor isn't more than 12MP.

0 upvotes
EPons
By EPons (Nov 17, 2012)

Don't think so:
1 manual zoom
2 weather proofing

The rest is only little change, that doesn't stop real photographers...
( apart 1/1.7 sensor, but wont be 25-600)

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Nov 18, 2012)

Everything you all said is dead on, beside the 1/1.7 sensor. The camera is already heavy. Its not going to happen. We MIGHT see a 28-200mm F2.8 constant p7800 from nikon maybe....But it will not be anywhere near 25-600mm 2.8 this camera has.
Personally i dont see how the internal memory plays any part in the camera. 70mb is plenty. You need to buy a card for it.....

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 18, 2012)

There is no way to make a 25-600 2.8 lens cover a larger 1/1.7" sensor. The lens would be huge. The reason that most bridge super-zoom cameras use 1/2.3" sensor is the large over 5Xs crop factor makes designing small lenses easier.

3 upvotes
Seagull TLR
By Seagull TLR (Nov 18, 2012)

7. Costs only pennies and comes with free lunch : D

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Nov 18, 2012)

agree on everything but the Touch screen

Edit: The lens would be a problem with a bigger sensor I guess. What about a 25-300 f2.8? Anyone knows if it can be done with a 1/1.7" sensor ?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Nov 18, 2012)

Aren't you describing something like the Fujifilm X-S1? (except that it's sensor is a little bit larger yet, at 2/3 (or 1/1.5)
Why wait? It's a year old and still unsurpassed.

@Marike6: the Fuji XS1 is proving your statement to be dead wrong. Go take a look for yourself. ;-)
24-624mm
f2.8-5.6
2/3" sensor
JPEG and RAW, Panorama, 10fps at full resolution, FullHD video, HDR, viewfinder, tilt/swivel 3" LCD, good external controls, fast focus times, low shutter lag... it's hard to find anything missing... it's a 2011 model and the others still haven't anything that catches up to it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Nov 18, 2012)

The X-S1 has a F2.8-5.6 and is a crappy camera like most Fuji P&S/bridge.

2 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Nov 17, 2012)

Hmm..
If Panasonic can squeeze out F2.8 at 600mm equivalent to bridge camere. Why not doing same trick for m43 lense at 150mm :)
What they have now to offer for m43 is F2.8 at 100mm and premium price.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 18, 2012)

4/3s has a lot bigger sensor size, very close to APS-C, so 150mm f2.8 lens wont be small or cheap.

3 upvotes
spencerberus
By spencerberus (Nov 25, 2012)

A 150mm f2.8 Pana-Leica m43 lens was announced at Photokina for release in 2013-2014. It is a prime lens, not a zoom.

0 upvotes
Jack Simpson
By Jack Simpson (Nov 17, 2012)

If not already mentioned ... uh oh, proof reader fail :o "More expensive than other super zooms (though none have comparable lenses)" ..... should be "none have a comparable lens" :) Other than that, a nicely written piece :)

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Nov 18, 2012)

I hate to burst your bubble, but one year ago, this was on the market already:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fujifilm_xs1/specification

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (Nov 19, 2012)

A lens that is f5.6 at max zoom is not comparable to a lens that is f2.8 at max zoom.

0 upvotes
tlinn
By tlinn (Nov 17, 2012)

I find it interesting that Panasonic has finally spec'd out an ideal superzoom camera, but waited to do it until it was too late. It's a shame really because it's not like consumers haven't been asking for a constant aperture, RAW-capable superzoom forever. But now there are so many other options offering larger sensors with higher image quality that, at least for me, make this camera irrelevant.

I read an article this week that detailed the decline of the large Japanese consumer electronic companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Sharp. I have to wonder if their tendency to hold back features and offer consumers the absolute minimum they think they can get away with from one product generation to the next is part of the problem. Canon is the poster child for this marketing strategy and it drives me crazy.

12 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Nov 17, 2012)

I don't see why it's irrelevant, sure other bridge cameras offer bigger sensors and larger apertures but none offer nearly this much reach.

The only other similar camera is the Fuji X-S1, which has a larger sensor and around the same reach but has a much smaller aperture at the telly end and is a fair bit bigger too.

4 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Nov 18, 2012)

You can only do so much with the tech you have, until you have better tech...

0 upvotes
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 18, 2012)

Really? Name something better with a 600mm equivalent reach and with the same image stabilization and video quality?

Hint: You won't find anything, but it won't stop you guys from sounding like a broken record.

People always make comments like this as generalities because the truth is you can't name anything else that's actually better.

1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (Nov 19, 2012)

beach, the nikon v1.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 19, 2012)

What's the use of a nice constant aperture lens if IQ of sensor is so poor? Or is it the lens that is poor actually. Compare this camera to the Nikon P7700, jpeg or raw. That's a compact with IQ deserving some note.

0 upvotes
Mirfak
By Mirfak (Nov 17, 2012)

Unconvinced. The FZ150 RAW images are much less noisy than the FZ200 images. From an IQ point of view, this is not progress. No wonder why so many FZ200 users are struggling to tame the beast.

6 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

That's true, and why I recommand some of my friends to buy the good FZ150 instead the FZ200, as the "improvement" is not dramatic while the FZ150 price has fallen dramatically (in Japan, it costs about half the price of a FZ200).

2 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Nov 17, 2012)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3P_CdjhxzAU/TYy85rdGOZI/AAAAAAAAAs0/EvVD_V0jKJk/s1600/troll1.jpg

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

Oh, please ! Don't be so childish ! There are adults who are talking here.

By the way, I can see in your behaviour the one of a man who bought a camera but seems to look for a way to reassure himself because he is not certain he made the good choice. And don't tell us you are, for if it was the case, you would not prowl on a discussion page that interests primarily FZ200 potential buyers or anyone aiming to buy a superzoom from now to Christmas.

0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Nov 17, 2012)

Thanks DPR for expediting the review, even if these collaborative efforts are 75% repetition of DCR. Better than nothing though! :)

I own the FZ200 and am absolutely thrilled with it. In some situations the IQ is not quite as good as the FZ35, but overall it's pictures and videos are excellent. And on occasion jaw-dropping!

Upon careful consideration of its main competitors, given its outstanding battery life, unmatched flexibility (60-1/4000 shutter, included hood, lens threads, HD high speed video, RAW burst etc), well there is no competition, really.

Of course the beautiful Leica glass is in itself is an engineering marvel. The 2.8 aperture should not be underestimated; there are many situations that other cameras just can't get the shot at all, or are forced into hand-shake territory or high ISO land...

As most experienced and intelligent photographers point out, a little (attractive) noise is not detrimental at all in the real world, especially when detail and colour are so well preserved.

In nearly all cases (early-build faulty units excepted), those complaining about noise either have unrealistic expectations, weren't using the camera properly, or live under bridges...

A simple search of the DPR forums quickly validates the incredible quality, flexibility and sheer fun this camera makes possible.

When I was researching cameras, I came across some truly mind-boggling astrophotography shots of constellations using the FZ200. Just wow!

PS DPR please correct the video length limit! In Oceania and Asia (at least) the AVCHD recording length is unlimited (battery and card capacity notwithstanding)

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 17, 2012)

"even if these collaborative efforts are 75% repetition of DCR"

Not true. We added almost all of our original preview of the FZ200 into this review, completely replaced the product images with our own photographs, shot in-house, and added scores of sample images. We also added Raw analysis, a side-by-side comparison showing the difference between F2.8 max aperture and F5.2, as well as resolution, noise/NR and image quality comparison samples and commentary. And we added the lion's part of the 48-image sample gallery, as well as a dynamically comparable score.

9 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

Oh, Barney ! Don't lose your time with this Austin who seems to have lost his mojo.

2 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Nov 17, 2012)

Thanks for your reply Barney. I could have worded that better. Specifically I found the use of the first person throughout the review of be (slightly) confusing: is that DPR or Jeff?

It is a great review and your comments above prompt me to read it again in this new light.
~

William the obsessive-compulsive need to proliferate your Fuji-anti-DPR bias would be entertaining if it weren't so sad. Good luck mate.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Nov 18, 2012)

So Barney, what's up with all this attention on consumer cameras with micro-sized sensors, and you guys not giving any attention at all to the Fujifilm X-S1 which was introduced in 2011?
Larger sensor, same zoom range, great speed and IQ... seems to be what everyone wants, and you guys seem to hope that it stays unnoticed.
Something's not right!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
jeff@dcresource
By jeff@dcresource (Nov 19, 2012)

@chillgreg, the first person thing is a dcresource thing. It's been my "style" since the beginning. Sorry if it's a little confusing!

- Jeff

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 19, 2012)

@Timmbits - that was the model with the 'orbing' sensor. Unfortunately, that took so long for Fujifilm to sort out, and we didn't want to review a camera with a faulty sensor so it just ended up at the back of the queue. I promise to review the X-S2 :)

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 19, 2012)

Does your camera perform so poorly re IQ as the one tested? If so, I wonder what's the use for the "beautiful Leica glass"... .

0 upvotes
IndianaIronButt
By IndianaIronButt (Nov 17, 2012)

I purchased the FZ200 and used it for about a week, then returned the camera. I agree that it is a good camera and deserves a high score - for a small sensor super zoom. What I did not realize is that the image quality is not what I am used to. The APSC size sensor on my Canon 7D at 55mm, when enlarged to match the FZ200 was just as good IQ. So, I found that the super zoom doesn't really give any more reach than I already have. However, the primary reason I returned the camera is that the EVF lags too much to capture the moment of a moving target. I could never get the facial expression in the image I was seeing with my eye - even when prefocusing.

2 upvotes
NiallM
By NiallM (Nov 17, 2012)

Exactly - put a 300mm on an aps-c (450mm) crop 50% (675mm) and the IQ will beat anything from these superzooms..

0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Nov 17, 2012)

and for the same price too!! right?

6 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Nov 18, 2012)

...

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MiLei
By MiLei (Nov 17, 2012)

But what about the optics? superzoom is lens and body in one package, and this preview seems to forgotten the lens. Superzoom is not a SLR body.

1 upvote
SHood
By SHood (Nov 17, 2012)

+1. I wish they would compare superzoom lenses at the long end.

0 upvotes
Jákup
By Jákup (Nov 17, 2012)

Great review.

Been trying to get a fz200 for a month now, it keeps being 'sold out'.

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

Here in Japan, the FZ200 is always avaible (and I didn't see any "sold out" period for this camera) while the SX50 has been sometimes unavaible as it seems to be a serious winner, to the point in some shops like the famous Bic Camera (distric of Yurakucho) it's even more expensive now than a week after its release.

0 upvotes
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (Nov 17, 2012)

Where are you shopping? In the US, just this minute (1pm PST) it shows as "in stock" at B&H.

0 upvotes
uzzy88
By uzzy88 (Nov 17, 2012)

I really would like a review about fuji X-S1. The bigger sensor and the manual zoom could outperform the FZ200.

11 upvotes
Mirfak
By Mirfak (Nov 17, 2012)

The FZ200 images at IR look signifantly better than the X-S1 images, despite the latter having a much larger sensor.

0 upvotes
uzzy88
By uzzy88 (Nov 17, 2012)

On which basis are you talking? I can't believe a sensor with double area produces worst image.

0 upvotes
IchiroCameraGuy
By IchiroCameraGuy (Nov 18, 2012)

Mirfak, not close friend. FZ200 images are not any better than last year sub $150 Canon compacts. Compare it to the lowest end one on here for studio comparison, 100HS. ISO200 and over goes to the Canon easily and that camera was under $120 last year. Panasonic compacts are not being pushed in the right way.

More people start buying their m4/3 then they might stop handicapping their compacts. They want you to say a small sensor just does not work even with constant F2.8. A couple other companies have done the same thing in the past couple years.

0 upvotes
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 18, 2012)

uzzy88, the difference between Panasonic and Fuji is that Panasonic has a great deal of experience producing polished, long zoom cameras.

Even if Fuji's image quality were better, which is dubious, I'd rather have the Panasonic. Compare the image stabilization and autofocus between the two. There's no way Fuji can compete here.

Compare the video quality. Again, no comparison.

And, to top it off, there have been some reviews that indicate the Panny is sharper at tele than the Fuji.

I love Panasonic products, and I've never seen them produced anything short of perfectly polished and very usable in ways that most other manufacturers wouldn't have any hope of competing.

It sure would be a major loss to the photographic (and videographic) community if we lost Panasonic as a major player. And that very well could happen.

0 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Nov 17, 2012)

Great camera of this kind. Well done Panasonic Lumix.

1 upvote
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 17, 2012)

Panasonic Congratulations!
Thank you for this interesting camera - especially for the top-movie mode and everywhere f2.8 - great work

1 upvote
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Nov 17, 2012)

Would like to see the comparesing between DMC-FZ200 and the Leica V-Lux 4. Love the DMC-FZ150 I own,

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 17, 2012)

Hotshoe, 1/4000 high speed sync speed, 25mm wide angle and const. f2.8
That alone makes it an outstanding P&S that outclasses many mirrorless m4/3 and APS-C cameras.

Well done !!!

2 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Nov 17, 2012)

@gl2k. In what way is this camera a point and shoot? These small sensor cameras need a lot more intervention to get good results than any DSLR or CSC. Can you explain what you mean? Large sensor cameras with their greater dynamic range, more focusing points and more sophisticated exposure evaluation are much easier to use if you just want to point and shoot. I am interested in why you classify this camera as point and shoot?

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 17, 2012)

@Greynerd, apart from having an iauto mode (I hope! I didn't check--most Panasonic cameras have them), I would consider any camera with this size sensor to be a point and shoot because the DOF is so deep. It doesn't mean that every shot will be in focus, but most of them will.

Deep DOF is usually criticized on these forums, but it is handy for street and documentary photography (and macro).

1 upvote
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Nov 17, 2012)

@bobbarber. DOF is only one factor amongst many and not a great problem with the standard kit lens especially compared to a fast fixed f2.8 long zoom camera like this. To call these cameras point and shoot just makes no sense as blown highlights and black shadows are as big a problem with these small sensor cameras as focus depth. In my experience the smaller the sensor the less point and shoot it is.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 17, 2012)

@Greynerd,

I see your point, but I wouldn't get too dramatic with the blown highlights and blocked shadows. I shoot m43 and compacts, and the compacts are definitely more point-and-shootish, even if the IQ of a properly done m43 shot is better. Focus is still the most important IQ parameter. A properly focused shot with blown highlights and blocked shadows can look fantastic, but a mis-focused shot with awesome dynamic range will look terrible no matter how you post-process it.

1 upvote
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (Nov 17, 2012)

@gl2k writes:

"That alone makes it an outstanding P&S that outclasses many mirrorless m4/3 and APS-C cameras."

Rubbish! One of the best aps-c sensors is the current Sony 16mp one used on several makers cameras not just Sony's and a quick comparison using the DPR comparison tool shows it to be at least 6 stops better than this camera. You can shoot the aps-c cameras at ISO 3200 and get comparable results to this camera at ISO 100. You don't even need to do that though as most long aps-c lenses are not 6 stops slower than F2.8. You typical F5.6 optic means ISO 400 is enough to match the Panasonic and at that ISO they absolutely trounce it at ISO 100.

1 upvote
the reason
By the reason (Nov 18, 2012)

outclasses aps c and m4/3s? those are some fine high grade hallucinogens youre taking...

1 upvote
olivier_777
By olivier_777 (Nov 17, 2012)

I'm surprised that in such a review the lens performance is not systematically tested ; this is for me the most important aspect of the camera. How does it perform at 25, 35, 50, 100, 200, 500... Wide open and at optimal aperture? Resolution, contrast, astigmatism, bokeh, flare, distorsion, shading, you know... The resolution test or studio test at one focal lens and one aperture only tell us nothing there.

19 upvotes
David Ferrari
By David Ferrari (Nov 17, 2012)

it's a collaborative review. That level of detail is probably only in the bigger in-house DSLR reviews. Pity, but there you go.

1 upvote
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (Nov 17, 2012)

"That level of detail... DSLR reviews."

Why is the performance of a zoom lens relevant in a DSLR review? Since you can switch lenses, any discussion of lenses in any DSLR review is by definition nonsensical.

DSLR quality reviews should be performed with a single lens, preferably a high-quality 3rd party one with samples for each mfg. This allows one to test the camera, not the lens.

If one wants to review KIT lenses sold with DSLRs, do separate lens reviews on multiple cameras - or on one specimen of the brand reserved for all such reviews. The same kit lens is typically sold with many models.

For cameras with fixed lenses such as this FZ200 it makes sense to test the performance of its lens at its shortest , normal-lens equivalent, short- and long-tele and longest length. Perform the same test for all peer cameras at zoom settings providing the same angle of view - that will provide an objective measure of the system quality - which I would assume is what anyone wants to read.

1 upvote
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Nov 18, 2012)

Very true. I've read user reports that the lens is very soft unless closed down, at which point it gets closer to the performance of it's predecesor. Yet, it's bluntly stated in the review that it's an inherently better lens based on specs. Some might say that anyone expecting sharp results wide open is expecting too much, but that's how it's being advertised, so it would be good to know.

0 upvotes
Alexis D
By Alexis D (Nov 18, 2012)

Good point from Olivier about the lens not being tested properly at various focal lengths and apertures, given the vast range of FLs in a superzoom camera.

Also good point from Shutterbug that this being a fixed lens camera, unlike a DSLR, its image quality does not depend on what lens is mounted and therefore should be tested properly and included in a review. I don't think it is practical or convenient to have a separate review at another time (if ever) just to test the lens comprehensively.

A complete review of the quality of the lens in a superzoom camera is a lot of work, and may be too much to expect from DPR. Interesting however, that DPR recently announced that they are going to do lens tests again.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stephen McDonald
By Stephen McDonald (Nov 17, 2012)

Not a word about the instability of the video autofocus, when panning or zooming. This is a deal-buster for me. There seems to be little attention to video by this reviewer. The sample photos are a bit over-exposed. It's probably necessary to routinely adjust the EV down in sunlight.

2 upvotes
mpix345
By mpix345 (Nov 17, 2012)

I was wondering about video also. I just picked up a Sony HX200V based on it's video capabilities, which I think are better than those of the FZ200. This review puts the FZ ahead of the HX though. Bit of a head-scratcher, but then again that is not unusual for DPR reviews.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 17, 2012)

There are tons of videos from this camera on YouTube if you just search "Panasonic FZ200 Video Test". I watched a few and video quality, as is usually the case with Panasonic, looks very good. And I don't see it having major AF issues even in some of the more zoom happy videos.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 18, 2012)

Panasonic and Sony routinely produce the best video capable cameras.

Whether Sony is better, it's hard to say.

But there certainly isn't any competition from Canon here. And Nikon will never know how to do video on anything other than their top of the line DSLRs.

Panasonic has historically had some of the best and fastest autofocusing cameras.

0 upvotes
RadPhoto
By RadPhoto (Nov 17, 2012)

An impressive camera. If i were in the market for a zoom camera, I would've got it.

4 upvotes
Airless
By Airless (Nov 17, 2012)

The review said "Panasonic did almost everything right" and "With a few refinements in design and image quality, the camera would be darn close to perfect." So why did it only get 80%? If a camera that had "everything right" would get 100% then how does one get just 80% that has almost everything right and a lacking only "refinements" to be "darn close to perfect"?

1 upvote
RadPhoto
By RadPhoto (Nov 17, 2012)

My thoughts exactly!

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Nov 17, 2012)

Typical black & white aspects...
So common!

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 17, 2012)

Simple, DPR put a lot of emphasis on the IQ, and most users use Jpeg. The Jpeg engine isn't as good as it could be, saying things nicely. Panasonic have a history of being heavy handed on NR for Jpegs and that hasn't changed much.

Otherwise the FZ200 is a real nice option, quite nice indeed.

4 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Nov 17, 2012)

It does have a fairly limited zoom for such a large body. Panasonic have given a wide aperture to offset this but this is by modern standards a travel zoom compact in a super zoom dslr sized body. It is not by any standards a super zoom anymore with 1.2 metre now attained by the SX50 though there will be no comparison as DPR have stopped testing the Canon equivalents since the SX20. DPR have tested the 1 metre Nikon P510 though so they should know what a super zoom is.

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Nov 17, 2012)

Mea Culpa. The SX50 results are in the review. Good to see. Apologies. I will get my coat.

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 17, 2012)

Surprise.. I mean no surprise. It is Panasonic so better review = better sales.

How about getting the new version of X-S1 or perhaps just the HS30?
And when will you consider the huge advantage of manual zoom bridge camera over a slow mo buzzing motorized zoom?

6 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Nov 17, 2012)

You left the window to the Fujifilm clubhouse open - better run back before your conspiracy diary and President's letterhead get all soft and mushy...
;p

0 upvotes
Beach Bum
By Beach Bum (Nov 18, 2012)

Advantage with stills maybe but not video.

It's about time DPR users got with the times regarding these cameras.

Video is just as important as stills to the average consumer, but 99% of the people here are stills only techies. It does a disservice to the average consumer when one of the top photographic sites is so heavily balanced toward stills.

We need some video enthusiasts here to balance things out.

0 upvotes
tron555
By tron555 (Nov 17, 2012)

In the studio scene comparison shots the FZ150 look MUCH sharper and clearer to my eye in both JPEG and RAW to my eye. Is anyone else seeing what I am seeing?

7 upvotes
SHood
By SHood (Nov 17, 2012)

Yes, especially with RAW at low ISO. Likely due to the switch to CMOS.

2 upvotes
jaykumarr
By jaykumarr (Nov 17, 2012)

me too. But Some people in pany forum were bragging their FZ200 was sharper than FZ150, while I did not see any improvement in FZ200. This photos prove the same.

2 upvotes
imbimmer
By imbimmer (Nov 17, 2012)

@jaykumarr

It's all about feeling good ... no need to buy everything people TYPE on the internet and there are too many pretentious folks here. :-)

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Nov 17, 2012)

FZ150's shot was taken at f/3.5, FZ200's at f/2.8

Could be that the constant range brought with itself some compromises. But it'd be interesting to see FZ200's image taken at f/3.5

0 upvotes
g7star
By g7star (Nov 17, 2012)

Thank you for the review. Now, will you have SX50 review sometime soon? I see SX50 in the studio comparison list.

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 17, 2012)

Based on the comparison, SX50 resolves better than FZ200. Will you bet that they will only give it Silver-crap award?

7 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 17, 2012)

@jcmarfilph

f3.4-6.5

But let's face it, your comment is well-thought out and accurate. Constant 2.8 aperture is just "feature bloat", like art filters, and not really useful for, let's say, shooting at 600mm equivalent.

The Canon is obviously just as good a camera!

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

I've tried the SX50 and found it way better than the FZ200 in IQ. I wonder how Canon did so well with a f3.4-6.5 lens against a superb f2.8 Leica lens. A one more proof that just a criterium is not enough to judge a camera and that every on-sheet specs must always be confirmed by a real-life experience.

0 upvotes
Edlolim
By Edlolim (Nov 17, 2012)

+ 1

PS: I own a FZ200 :)

0 upvotes
worldcup1982
By worldcup1982 (Nov 17, 2012)

Raw comparison at f6.3 for the FZ200 and f3.5 for the FZ150? is that correct? if so, wouldnt that give a good advantage for the FZ150? in resolution terms? (less diffraction for the FZ150)

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 17, 2012)

It is incorrect. Both Raw and JPEG files were captured simultaneously at F4.5. I have no idea why the aperture is incorrectly described in the information panel but thanks for spotting it.

1 upvote
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 17, 2012)

This has been DPR's long problem. They cannot compare a camera side-by-side and will just rely on the old database and not even equalize the settings.

5 upvotes
imbimmer
By imbimmer (Nov 17, 2012)

Color Foto of Germany would redo the tests even for some older cameras once they update their test methodology and standard. And they publish the exact bench test results with numbers in almost every category judging the image quality.

The FZ200 is FAR behind on their compact camera standings list, with regards to the Canons, the old SX40HS beats SX50HS in many categories as well as overall score.

I suggest dpreview adopt the same approach otherwise these scores in percentage are all relative plus the gold and silver medals are all meaningless.

5 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

"The FZ200 is FAR behind on their compact camera standings list"... I can believe it easily as the FZ200 is an amazingly noisy camera for its generation/level of price, and it's even relatively worse than another average camera when one considers it features a miraculous f2.8 lens ! The image engine must be damn bad to achieve such poor results.

2 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Nov 18, 2012)

jcmarfilph can you read? the reply DIRECTLY above yours states they were shot at the same aperture, by one of the site mods.

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 18, 2012)

@The Reason:

Look at the EXIF of FZ150 and FZ200 and tell your words to yourself.

0 upvotes
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (Nov 17, 2012)

Good review and validates my own experience. We bought the Nikon P510 early in the summer about a week before the FZ200 was announced, and used it until early September. Glad Costco has a great return policy. As a lifelong Nikon user I am very pleased with what Panasonic has done with this camera:
- the 1.2MPxl OVF should have had more prominent mention in this review. It is SO MUCH SHARPER than any other OVF I've seen.
- The diopter correction in this camera is far superior to the P510's. Nice, crisp images in the EVF were one of my first impressions.
- The constant F2.8 lens really helps with any telephoto situation.
- I like Panasonic's implementation of the left-side manual focus lever much better than Nikon's (where you must set the camera to MF every time you want to use the lever). Unfortunately MF with any of this class of camera is not well advanced - I'm constantly focusing past the sharp point.
- The RAW support is great.
We have been very pleased with the camera overall.

1 upvote
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (Nov 17, 2012)

It's 1.2MP 0.2 inch peephole EVF not OVF

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

To PLShutterbug who states that "It is SO MUCH SHARPER than any other OVF I've seen."

You must be kidding us, don't you ? Oh, my ! It can't be anything else...

0 upvotes
Edlolim
By Edlolim (Nov 17, 2012)

@ Shutterbug, just curiou here, don't read me wrong pls.
Now that the Canon SX50 is out and overall has better IQ than the FZ200 (at least at noise level), are you planning on bringing/exchanging it at Costco too? This is a "good way" to keep really updated, ain't it? Afterall there's a new cam at the block in every new... "season". Hum???

0 upvotes
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (Nov 17, 2012)

Note that while I wrote "OVF" at the beginning I wrote "EVF" later. Gimmea a break - everyone makes typos at some point. Unfortunately I don't see a way to edit my post.

I bought the Nikon at Costco while on a short vacation because I was impressed by the zoom specs and we had been thinking of a replacement for our three-year-old P80 anyway. After some use I realized its shortcomings - despite the long zoom reach the rest of its execution is sadly lacking. I mentioned Costco's generous return policy only because I'm relieved not to be stuck with the P510 until my next upgrade. To my knowledge Costco doesn't sell this Panasonic model so the point is moot anyway

I bought the Panasonic at Kenmore Camera, a local Seattle-area shop. They offered a generous return policy as well but I'm well past that now and have no intention of moving away from this camera for quite some time.

1 upvote
David Ferrari
By David Ferrari (Nov 17, 2012)

Nice cooperative review, but I am a little surprised that a camera with that much noise at ISO 100 can get a Gold award.

13 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Nov 17, 2012)

Do you print pics?

0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 17, 2012)

Who print pics these days? =)

2 upvotes
Vibrio
By Vibrio (Nov 17, 2012)

I print alot - I like to see my work on the wall

3 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

I agree with you. I've tried it and read a lot of reviews/opinions of owners on the web and most of them point out the noise that is well noticable at any ISO value, even at low ISO. Thus, many reviewers recommand future owners to stay at 100-800, 800 ISO being the limit of the acceptable.

I planned first to buy one, but I saddly gave up this idea for good: not a serious camera, if you ask me.

1 upvote
chillgreg
By chillgreg (Nov 17, 2012)

Sorry, who asked you?

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 17, 2012)

I said "if you ask me", but nobody is compelled to, of course.

0 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Nov 18, 2012)

things is william, if you were planning to buy one, youre probably not a serious photographer either...so the camera is perfect for you

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 18, 2012)

Wrong ! Even serious photographers need a second or a third camera for their "days-off" or for the days they don't want to walk around with 3kg of material handing to their neck. That's why they intend to look for the best compact/bridge they can find... and obviously it wasn't the FZ200. Didn't you know that ? So why do you bother us with your unbased opinion ? That's not serious my dear !

1 upvote
Total comments: 177