Previous news story Next news story

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Sample Images

Aug 13, 2013 at 11:00:24 GMT

Print view

We've just posted a 39-image gallery of real-world samples shot on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 zoom compact. Spanning the equivalent of 20-1200mm the FZ70's lens is the largest zoom available in a consumer compact, and we've spent a few days testing it out in a variety of situations, to see what this new superzoom can do. Click the links below to view our gallery of real-world samples.

Click here to see our gallery of real-world samples from the Panasonic DLC-FZ70

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Samples Gallery - Published August 13th 2013

SAMPLE GALLERY PANASONIC

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70

Add to: Login to add this item to your gear lists.

GearShop

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Compact Camera●

Buy on GearShop

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ70 16.1 MP Digital Camera with 60x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 3-Inch LCD (Black)	Too low to display
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ70 16.1 MP Digital Camera with 60x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 3-Inch LCD (Black)	Too low to display
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Digital Camera (Black) with 32GB Card + Battery + Case + Flash + Tripod + HDMI Cable + Accessory Kit	$409.95
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ70 16.1 MP Digital Camera Kit with 60x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 3-Inch LCD (Black). Inlcudes:0.45X Wide Angle Lens, 2X Telephoto Lens, 3 Piece Filter Kit (UV-CPL-FLD), 16GB Memory Card, High Speed Memory Card Reader, Extended Life Replacement Battery, Rapid Travel Charger, Slave Flash & Carrying Case	$471.09
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ60 16.1 MP Digital Camera with 24x Optical Zoom - Black	$299.95
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ70 16.1 MP Digital Camera Kit with 60x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 3-Inch LCD (Black). Inlcudes: 16GB Memory Card, High Speed Memory Card Reader, 2 Extended Life Replacement Batteries, Mini HDMI Cable, Table Top Tripod, LCD Screen Protectors, Cleaning Kit & Carrying Case	$418.00
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 DMC-FZ70K DMCFZ70K Digital Camera + 32GB SDHC Class 10 Memory Card + Extra DMW-BMB9 Battery + Carrying Case + External Rapid Quick Charger For DMW-BMB9 + Memory Wallet + Table Top Tripod, Lens Cleaning Kit, LCD Protector + USB SDHC Reader	$384.99
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Digital Camera (Black) with 64GB Card + Battery + Case + Flash/Video Light + Diffuser + Tripod + Accessory Kit	$444.95
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Digital Camera (Black) with 32GB Card + Battery + Backpack + 3 UV/FLD/CPL Filters + Tripod + Accessory Kit	$399.95
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ70 16.1 MP Digital Camera Kit with 60x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 3-Inch LCD (Black). Inlcudes: 8GB Memory Card, High Speed Memory Card Reader, Extended Life Replacement Battery, Table Top Tripod, LCD Screen Protectors, Cleaning Kit & Carrying Case	$421.00
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Digital Camera (Black) with 32GB Card + Battery + Case + 3 UV/FLD/CPL Filters + Tripod + Accessory Kit	$399.95

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 68

This camera is unremarkable aside from its 60X zoom feature. As for the accessories such as the DMW-LC55 close-up enhancement and the essential lens adapter DMW-LA8, well, where are they? No one seems able to obtain them.

These problems aside, the camera has a major design flaw - the LED display panel doesn't hinge out up or down! For me this renders many of those side on macro shots impractical...and as for celestial photography - try mounting it on a tripod and using it to view an object more that 70 degrees above the horizon. Had I known of this strange omission, I would never have bought this camera!

0 upvotes

Good enough for what it is and who its for.

0 upvotes

I'm not at all impressed by the plane shot. Check out here planes flying at some 11km altitude with 900km/h:

https://plus.google.com/photos/106913078899624028286/albums/5712241697511620689?banner=pwa

0 upvotes

Really looking forward to this camera, sample images are quite acceptable for me I guess; my plan is to lose my Sigma 8-16 & Nikon 55-300 while keeping 50/1.4 & 17-50/2.8.
28-70 & 80-200 are reserved for N6006.

@20mm, IQ sample is quite good, some parts are quite reaching per-pixel sharpness even @ 100% and that were shot @ f/2.8; I suppose f/4 would give good trade-off between even sharpness & diffraction limit. It'd be wide enough (about 14mm setting on my sigma, @8mm sigma I think there were just too much distortion in the corners).

Don't really care about 1200mm eqv. I don't really think it has a good enough IQ, then again I'd very seldom use that FL; prolly just about 600mm max.

Most important for me would be IQ @ 20mm - 400mm, the rest of FL would be considered as a free FL bonus.

0 upvotes

There is no reason to expect wildly better images here than from a FZ150 or even a FZ60. Why would you? The reason to consider this camera is the zoom range and perhaps the HD video (and claimed audio quality improvement) that goes along with it.

If you dump your point and shoot and your camcorder in favor of carrying just this one unit, then it all should start to make sense.

0 upvotes

It makes no sense to get cranky about 100% crop image quality from a small sensor camera. No one looks at a framed 8 x 10 from inches away, much less with a magnify glass. It doesn't matter who offers it: fabulous, critical image quality for grumpy people isn't happening with a postage-stamp sized sensor. Anyone remotely familiar with digital cameras knows this.

At $399 MSRP, street price is going to hit $300 very soon. $299 is what I paid for my Panasonic DMC-LX7K. Of course a bit larger sensor with lower photosite density has its advantages, as does the brighter lens of the LX7. But, it is a 3.8x zoom.

You can crop all day and all night, but you aren't going to acquire images with a 3.8x zoom camera comparable to a 24x zoom, much less a 60x zoom. If you have no desire for a high zoom camera, then just drive on. In that case, there is nothing worth wasting your time on here.

0 upvotes

I'm waiting for Leica to develop a 20-1200mm equiv. constant F2.8 and stick that on a Lumix bridge. Woot!

0 upvotes

4608 x 3456 = ~16MP on 1/2.3" sensor.
4608px / 6.17mm = ~750px/mm

cancel out Bayer CFA, ie. reduce to 50% = 2304 x 1728 = ~4MP
2304px / 6.17mm = ~375px/mm

About a decade ago, Canon & Nikon released flagship DSLR with similar MP resolution for thousands of dollars without lens but with similar DR & Noise performance; and those DSLRs has illustrated a lot of NGC, NYT, Sports Illustrated, Stock Photos, Ads, etc. without anyone complaining about noise & dynamic range.

Now, given the same price, which would you choose (provided you could only afford 1 camera) between :
FZ70 VS Nikon D2h/Canon 1D (with 35-70/3.5-5.6 lens for meeting budget ceiling).

Sure, with DSLR (even the old one) you can always mount a better lens; but @ 4MP & no budget for lenses? other beneficial maybe like faster response/AF/burst, weather sealing, size (sometimes it's an advantage, you can use its magnesium body as a blunt weapon).

Now, don't get me wrong, I still use my Nikon 1Dx @ 2.7MP :)

1 upvote

I'm no pro photog, from thousands of pics I took with my (then) "PRO" level DSLR, most of them resides in my hard drive.
When I look at them, I use my (~2MP) full HD 32" LED monitor and still can't get @ full 100% view without pressing "+" sign on my keyboard.
Of thousands pics, only a few that really went for printings.

Sure I'd love to have videos for kids & friends, long super tele zoom lenses, IS/VR, ultrawide 20mm goodness, etc; but then again, budget limiting.

Sure if you have the will & the dough, get a more powerful one, FZ70 is simply not a DSLR.

Shoot FZ70 @ 4MP and don't worry too much about details, noise, CA, sharpness, etc. Enjoy composing & capture the moment, be it Superwide(20mm?), Supermacro larger than live (raynox?), super tele (1200mm?), super bokeh (use tele), super HDR, Full HD Video, etc. (ok, maybe no fast action sport shooting yet :D )

my D1x is just too heavy and then some lenses :( sigh, but I still love it :)

0 upvotes

Pretty impressive for a $399.00 Zoom Camera. Panasonic did a good job; a 60x Optical Zoom for $399.00. For those who disagree...go to Canon or Nikon and get better quality....at x10 the price.
Murray, Panasonic fan; had 2 prior generation zooms. Currently use an FZ100.

0 upvotes

Quite frankly the image quality is one step short of horrible... even a point & shoot like Sony's WX 60 / 80 which utilizes a 16 MP sensor is miles ahead in terms of IQ and noise control...

0 upvotes

Actually, the image quality is fairly typical for a 1/2.3 class camera. It's not horrible, it's not great. The CA is fairly well controlled (or compensated by the internal processing), the contrast is okay for an unprocessed image. Pixel level detail is poor, but no poorer than any other sub-$400 compact with this many pixels. In looking at several of the tele-end shots, atmospheric degradation seems to be the culprit for low contrast and detail. The two flies on the llama is not fantastic, but is much, much better than the TWA or over-the-water shot since there isn't a mile of atmosphere between the lens and subject.

5 upvotes

Well, at least you can win when comparing who's the longest.
If I have one, I'll proudly wear it on my waist.

0 upvotes

I can't really understand why so much criticism has been directed towards this model. The intention of this camera is genuine versatility rather than outright image quality. Super wide angle and super telephoto is its selling point and that's what some people desire. For the price it will undoubtedly handle certain photographic situations that other cameras could only dream of doing. If you want better photo quality as well as low light capability and DOF then consider Panasonics's sister model the FZ200 with its fixed F2.8 aperture as its a different beast altogether catering to a different target market at a different price point.

The Fujifilm X100s is a fixed lens 35mm camera with top notch photo quality. To criticise it for not possessing wide angle capabilities and zoom is missing the point altogether.

Different horses for different courses and each camera needs to be looked at in its particular context.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

15 upvotes

But it isn't versatile - not with its fixed LED panel which rules out many of those macro shots I go for. Try mounting it on a tripod for a shot of the moon high in the sky and see how you go. I didn't bother to check for this before I bought it because I didn't believe there would be such an omission on such a camera these days! The rest of it - aside from the zoom length - is simply mediocre.

0 upvotes

Has anyone here commenting actually used this camera?

1 upvote

Unless you use it for sports there is really no point. No good for travel if you zoom in and lose the quality of the image to blurring of detail unless you like that sort of thing.

Overall though the images look better than other ultra-superzooms that I have seen and really good value for those seeking this kind of camera.

Cheers

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I wouldn't use a sluggish slow-zooming camera for capturing any action shots. The only use of this camera is the wide FL but then again you can buy a cheap fisheye or wide-angle converter and put it on your existing superzoom cam which is far better and faster than this cam.

2 upvotes

I am not sure about this camera. There are so many critics out there. I would want to use it for sports. Is it really that bad?

0 upvotes

This light and a kind of small camera will have to be carried with a tripod to exploit this equivalent of 1200mm!!!

0 upvotes

Not at all. With OIS you can hand hold 1200mm at around 1/200-1/300 second, which is totally doable on a sunny day even at ISO 100.

1 upvote

Samples show grease and smear even at brightest light and ISO100 - similar to the FZ60.
Several other digicams with the same small sensor perform better, and the nice lens and other feature can not compensate for the inferior IQ.

2 upvotes

For more information on this FZ, see:
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/pressrelease/second_half_new_production2013/#fz70

0 upvotes

Decent enough for the intended market. Yes it is noisy and shows artifacts even at 100 ISO if you pixel peep. This is not a professional or enthusiasts camera but for a family that wants some great memory shots it is quite decent. Like that wide angle.

Looking at the full size originals, the image is not so great in detail, but if you downsize to a reasonable size it will be acceptable for its market. I would say you lower ISO images would easily be good for prints up to 16x20, for family, not art gallery viewing. The lens range is convenient. Might even make a nice back-up for documentary photography. Just have to keep in mind its limitations.

For those complaining about the dullness, well panasonic doesn't push for the most vibrant colors. You can always post process to improve it. And you should try shooting in the Puget Sound on a humid day. Light can be quite diffused and dull sometimes.

6 upvotes

I'll sell my DSLR Nikon to buy a smaller compact camera with great pleasure. No more big bodies with many lenses. They are to heavy, big, not discreet for street photos. No attractions for stealers.

But it might not be this DMC FZ70!

1 upvote

Has ANYONE else noticed that compact cameras are being made WORSE in image quality on purpose the last 2 years? Canon powershot SX150 is being one example, this camera being another?
I can't help but think camera manufacturers are using WORSE hardware and selling at the same price just to reduce loss & in turn pushing customers AWAY who would WANT to buy a compact camera.

3 upvotes

The relative loss of popularity of P&S cameras, IMHO, has nothing to do with your alleged 'intentional' dumbing-down of cameras. More like the proliferation of smartphones with (semi-)decent cameras.

I've been using P&S cameras (mostly 1/1.7" enthusiast and pocket zoom ones) for more than 10 years and I in no way would state P&S cameras represent decidedly less of being at a bleeding edge in technology now than, say, 10 years ago. Think of for example the Sony RX100 - it's in no way a "dumbed down" camera.

1 upvote

Superzoom / bridge cameras aren't intended to produce the same results as a dslr with massive telephoto lenses, even when used with tele-converters. The IQ from a more reasonable zoom range on a true compact camera will typically be better than that of a superzoom.

And yes -- the Sony rx100 suffers nothing in IQ for being a compact, standard zoom. Awesome camera it is.

0 upvotes

Why is everybody complaining about the quality of these cameras? For the small amount of money one is paying for them, do they expect them to perform like a USD 15,000.00 combo (lens + camera)?

Be realistic?

5 upvotes

Well said W.S. I wish these whiners would stop whining and go out and buy the Pentax 645 if image quality is that important. Besides full telephoto over the water magnifies the atmosphere; that does not mean it is a bad camera. It is not the fault of the (camera).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

People want inexpensive cameras, but they don't accept that the manufacturers cut any costs or make any compromises in order to offer them just that. Go figure.

2 upvotes

I agree to this, My Canon SX10 took better pictures than my SX40IS, while the SX40IS has some better features and costs more. WS, I don't feel everyone is "Complaining" in general, but just stating the decline in quality of a similar camera design. I like the zoom and understand the loss of quality and was going to buy this Panasonic camera, but now I have second thoughts. I want a DSLR for the better quality, but cost and confusion stops me from getting one.

2 upvotes

@Menneisyys No it is not a dumbed down camera because it is a PREMIUM compact, but what I mean is the lower end and the middle range of compact cameras seem to be having a trend of just getting worse image quality. I have owned a lot of compact cameras & I can't help but compare them and see how the IQ is going downhill for an odd reason.

1 upvote

@calking
Of course they are not, HOWEVER I have owned more than one super-zoom camera and they delivered a LOT higher image quality than this camera & the canon powershot sx130 produced MUCH better image quality than the SX150.

1 upvote

@white shadow No I do NOT expect it to perform like an expensive camera but what I do expect them is to out perform a 5 year old MODEL. But they seem to NOT be doing that and seem to be going downhill each year in the last 3-4 years in image quality & instead adding more features.

1 upvote

@Nathebe Well excuse me for EXPECTING the NEXT model to be BETTER in image quality than the previous on.
I am looking at models from 4-5 years ago and a LOT of them deliver BETTER image quality than these NEWER models with ALLEGED better image quality, newer sensor and such.

1 upvote

@GWTony Thank you for understanding, yes earlier models seem to have been delivering better image quality than the more recent models for a weird reason.
Another example is the canon powershot sx130 vs the new sx150 (if I remember correctly the latest is sx150)

And I do own a DSLR so Image quality is what I am about, but

I just wanted to point at the FACT that compact camera's seem to be delivering worse image quality than they used to a few years ago for some odd reason.

The only camera's actually getting better image quality seem to be the premium compact camera's.

1 upvote

Awesome camera for the price and convenience.

0 upvotes

If one cannot afford to buy the Canon EF 600 f/4L IS II with a 1.4X extender for about USD 13,000.00 to be used on an APS-C body, they is an alternative for them.

Isn't it great to have choices?

3 upvotes

God, the detail in those pictures look awful.

3 upvotes

YAY LETS GO BLUE JAYS! LETS PLAY BALL!

0 upvotes

Good for a snapper on a budget with realistic expectations about IQ.

The IQ is just at the average small-sensor P&S (and even some smartphones) level. Plus all FZ models (maybe except FZ50) exhibit this annoying "lack of luminance" in their images making them too dull for my liking. It becomes noticeable only when comparing to other cameras but once you notice it, it become a real distraction. I do have FZ150 but only use it for video because of this "grey cast effect" as I would call it. I see the same quality but less sharpness in pictures from FZ70.

3 upvotes

My company owns an old Panasonic ZS1 travel zoom and it produces dull images, too. It is slightly mitigated by changing the color mode to Vivid.

0 upvotes

Yes, I think this comment nails it. While they can't do much about optics with this sensor, there's some room for improvement here in their JPEG engine. No amount of zoom would make me enjoy and look forward to shooting with a camera like this. I'd only recommend this to birders who must have this zoom at whatever cost. Photography is supposed to be fun and exciting, including as you get home and browse through the photos.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Not too bad. The color performance is nice. You really can't knock cameras like these...the image quality won't win awards but you can't beat the versatility. And at least you can shoot RAW with this model.

In addition, since this model is very nicely spec'd, I wonder what Panasonic will do with the successor to the FZ200.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

8 upvotes

Re: Panasonic FZ70- Pictures like those in the sample gallery are almost worthless. I would like to see a group of 40 CONTINUOUS IMAGES to get a better feel for how many wasted shots were needed or how many good shots one can expect getting from a bunch of shots. I also want to see the zoom expressed in 35mm figures and info about white balance.

0 upvotes

Well, then, even fewer images could be used to properly evaluate the IQ at different ISO's / apertures / focal lengths.

For example, I've only found four UWA shots of the 40-something, and only three was shot at good light. (The ISO1600 one can't be used to evaluate lens sharpness because of the excessive NR detail smearing.) And only two highest-ISO shots.

0 upvotes

Panasonic FZ70 - Versatility > Image Quality
Fujifilm X100s - Image Quality > Versatility

Different horses for different courses. Embrace the differences. Its what makes the world go round.

3 upvotes

Plus one is $1,300 and one is $400. So there's that.

7 upvotes

Panasonic need to work hard to make it better before releasing the product to buyer.
Many people still did not feel that the images quality good. Maybe just OK.
There is time to improve this

0 upvotes

The camera is already released so don't look for any major changes or firmware updates. You get what you pay for.

0 upvotes

Do you really think Pana can beat the laws of physics? We're speaking of a small sensor and a 60x lens, after all... Don't expect miracles.

0 upvotes

Good up to 87mm, definitely soft at 155mm. Skin tones tend to look posterised at full size. Most shots I looked at were ISO 100 f/5.6. Stopping down might help at the tele end, but if higher ISOs don't keep up, it might be a camera for bright daylight - as the samples and other commenters suggest. I assume the lens narrows down to f/5.6 quite early. f/4 at 11mm is sharp. I tried downsampling to half size (to just under four megapixels), and I'll say at that size and ISO 100, most won't notice the skin tone flaws unless they know what they're looking for. ISO 400 (polar bear) looks good at 1/4 size (1 MP), ISO 1600 (bouncy castle) you have to take for what it is - acceptable for documenting personal events but not for your portfolio.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I doubt anyone with this camera has a portfolio. The images look good for the price and features.

2 upvotes

I agree wholeheartedly.

0 upvotes

To my mind, if you have a flickr/smugmug/etc. stream, you have a portfolio. So it's a floating definition. I think a lot of prosumers/enthusiasts want that telezoom range and don't have the depth of pocket to get it any other way.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

You also mention price and features, but the image quality is actually typical of this sensor size. I don't know that throwing more money at the problem will have a greater effect than the patience to see what new tech might come, for instance, out of mobile phone cameras. The price differential within the ultrazoom bridge category is also very modest - current models seem to range from 200 USD (Pentax X-5) to $550 (Panasonic FZ200). It's a shame that the Fujifilm X-S1 sensor and camera size did not, apparently, catch on.

0 upvotes

In reviews it would be nice to have some charts like focal range/aperture to have better idea about brightness of lenses especially for those super zooms , because here I see 20-1200 for 2.8-5.9 and I say myself "cool !!! it will be pretty bright at middle range" but as I could conclude from samples it drops pretty fast too 5.6 (I assume not knowing if it's the max aperture for those focal ranges) and keeps relatively fixed it's aperture to it's max zoom

3 upvotes

From a different perspective, this is a photography site open to all web users and funded by advertising. The seats in this peanut gallery are pretty good and available to all.

1 upvote

It's OK under bright sunlight and display in small size but not in shadow or in large size or in dim light.

2 upvotes

What did you expect from a small-sensor superzoom?

The 20mm and the 1200mm equiv are what people will purchase this. (At least me - I'll love the 20mm, I'm afraid.)

5 upvotes

Well, yes, that would describe every superzoom on the market.

5 upvotes

Cool, there are 20mm equiv shots there too; for example, http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2656086/p1000361?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz70-sample-gallery

EDIT: also this:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2656084/p1000369?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz70-sample-gallery

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

The latter shot ( http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2656084/p1000369?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz70-sample-gallery ) is in no way bad for a superzoom. Some edge blur but no excessive CA. (And the noise at base ISO is acceptable for a small-sensor camera like this.)

After all, I'd purchase this camera for the 20mm UAW mostly...

0 upvotes

And two other daylight ones: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2653223/p1000274?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz70-sample-gallery and http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2653219/p1000234?inalbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz70-sample-gallery

A bit blurry in 30% of the frame around both vertical edges with discernable CA at full res. IMHO pretty acceptable for such a lens - I was afraid of much worse IQ.

A quick note: DPReview, please implement focal length / ISO etc.-based filtering so that we don't need to manually go over all images to find the ones shot with the parameters we're mostly interested in... even tagging the shots with "20mm equiv" would work.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

re: 3rd para, agree, also only doing 2 high ISO photos and the rest base ISO, maybe less quantity and more diversity in ISO would be more helpful. 2/39 = <5% is not that representative, or is there some other rationale at DPR?

0 upvotes

Looks like you guys had a fun time at the ballpark.

Photos are somewhat decent for a superzoom "compact".

3 upvotes

More than decent I could say, serious portable tool for a tabloids paparazzi...

0 upvotes

Total comments: 68

Editorial content

Product database

Community


Panasonic announces Lumix DMC-FZ70 with 60x optical zoom Jul 18, 2013	DxO Optics Pro 8.3.1 adds support for five recent cameras Sep 4, 2013	New test scene beta begins with Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 samples Aug 14, 2013	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Real-world Samples Aug 14, 2013

	Nikon 1 AW1 Sep 19, 2013
	Fujifilm X-A1 Sep 17, 2013
	Olympus OM-D E-M1 Sep 10, 2013
	Leica C (Typ112) Sep 8, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sep 5, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix S02 Sep 5, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX100 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Alpha A3000 Aug 27, 2013
	Sony Alpha NEX-5T Aug 27, 2013

Okay Fuji, so now that the experiment is over....	107
D610 to be announced within 48 hours (as of 10/5)	85
How many shots do you take to get a shot?	83
While everyone ooohs and aaaahs over the ...	78
More leaks about K3 specifications	76
Anyone for Sunday Scapes (2013-10-06) ?	66
After 3 weeks & thousands of shots: NEX-6 + ...	55
E-M1 Trouble focusing on moving objects	55
The Sunday BIRD Volume 9, Issue 15 October 6, 2013	48
Counterfeit lens caps from Amazon	42
GX7: Extended ISO125 Image Degradation?	41
E-M1 as E-5 successor - first week experience	37
Help deciding between Sony NEX-6 or Olympus ...	36
Weekend Catch : 5-6 October 2013	35
X-pro1 vs x-a1 (or is it X-A1 vs X-pro1) using ...	33
I'm going broke buying E-M5 Eyecups!	32
Sensor Technology (The Software Engineer Way)	31
Shutter shock verdict is not present here. ...	30
Worth selling my Canon DSLR to move to Olympus ...	30
Five Worst Clichés About Photography	26

Your email address:
Your name: