FZ50 highly recommended...

[Barry Fitzgerald]

One point I found interesting in the review was Simon's comment
that the increased number of megapixels DID lead to a (small)
increase in detail and resolution at ISO 100, at least with RAW and
possibly also with JPEGS set to low NR. For those of us interested
in a camera primarily for landscapes and other outdoor shots (and
I'm looking towards the LX2 rather than the FZ5)), that's very good
news.

There seems to be no doubt that increasing the number of pixels
compromised performance at ISO200 and above (though from what I've
seen posted on this forum, the FZ50 seems able to beat or at least
equal the FZ30 at higher ISO's with RAW, and probably with Jpegs
set to low NR). This may, as usual with the Lumix line, explain
the divided opinions about this camera. Those who focus on
performance at higher ISO's (and Barry seems to be in this
category) are disappointed, while those who are most interested in
performance at ISO 100 seem to be thrilled.

Zack

Hmm I will clarify what I think. I dont expect great high ISO ....by high ISO I mean 400/800/1600..but mostly 800+. With the FZ-5 I did come to the conclusion that it wasnt a good idea to go above 100 much...200 was ok ish...400 not good....maybe a 6x4 would be ok....

What bothers me most is that the doesnt seem to be any real improvements....with later models, in fact in some cases the reverse...FZ-7 IMO was clearly not as good as the already not great ISO 200 of the 5..it went down a bit...and seems to have done so with each new release.

I can respect the need for shooting at higher ISO isnt a priority for some users...but on the other hand....the conveyor belt of upgrades as they say..carries on...with mostly little or nothing..

Maybe I was expecting technology to move forward fast...doesnt seem to have been the case.
--

 

[Larry Winters]

Hello BF:

Image quality is what has concerned me.

You and almost everyone else I would imagine...Which is why you might be more impressed than you think given a full tryout...

This statement in the review kind of sums it for my type of shooting:

"The really good news is that - despite the FZ50's sensor being marginally noisier (from an examination of the raw files) than the FZ30's, at base ISO it produces images that are less noisy, yet don't suffer from any obvious noise reduction artefacts - at least not in our studio comparison shot. I was very worried indeed that the FZ50's Venus III processor would cause problems at low ISO settings, but it doesn't seem too painful (see the section on noise reduction for a more thorough examination of the effect on low contrast detail). We did, however, see evidence of noise and noise reduction in 'real world' shots taken in lower light."

Again, "at base ISO it produces images that are less noisy, yet don't suffer from any obvious noise reduction artefacts -"

That's what I believe most of us have been saying all along...The Venus III is not the smearing monster it's made out to be at the lower ISO's and good light...

Peace....

LW

Hello BF:

I've asked this before but you never really answered...

Have you actually used a FZ-50 as I can't remember you posting any
pics?...Or are you just forming an opinion from online examples?

Either way I respect everyones right to an opinion but I surely
wouldn't validate anything unless personally tested...

LW

I have had the opportunity to use an FZ-50..but only for a short
time, and I will concede in no way long enough to make what...
being honest is a really fair conclusion. I wont deny this.

My gripes are not with handling, this is a subjective/personal
area...one mans comfort, is another ones discomfort!

Image quality is what has concerned me.

--

 

[UncertainB]

Thanks for the responses!

IS is of interest but i want the best RAW photo quality (i think, anyway - i haven't been playing around with this stuff enough to really know.) As Erik97 mentioned, a tripod can balance that some - although that kills the convenience of a DigiCam, i suppose.

Ultimately, i can't really go wrong with either camera...it seems both are plenty good tools for taking some very nice photos.

I will keep reading and if i can remain patient, i am gonna try to wait and see how the s9100/s9600 performs. (i have a preference for the Fujifilm junk, my current cam is an E550 and it is pretty decent. I almost bought a s9000 a few weeks ago but couldn't find one in a store around here...I'm actually glad that i didn't, i think this FZ50 is cooler.)

SO DIFFICULT TO BE PATIENT.

 

[Jan Bohme]

I also appreciate this thorough review immensely, and I must say I've never understood people who fret endlessly over the badges - those are just one or two words out of thousands.

Still, my personal curiosity hasn't been completely sattisfied. I own an FZ20. I didn't upgrade to the FZ30 for one reason, and essentially one reason only; it robbed me of a stop at the long end, precisely where I needed it the most, as I often shoot with a Raynox 2.2 teleconverter attached to my FZ20.
_

(And yes, it was a full stop. Even a wee bit more. Maximal aperture decreasing from 2.8 to 3.7 plus ISO80 being the noise equivalent of FZ 20's ISO 100, and the ISO of choice, in the FZ. Makes for a total of 1.12 stops, if I got my base 2 logarithms right.)

The FZ50 hase several other improvements over the FZ30 that are really nice - for instance, a real flip-out-and twist LCD screen, external flash TL metering, and two-wheel control (which I've really learnt to appreciate since getting my Canon 30D.)

But my million dollar question hasn't really been answered to my satisfaction. And that question is: Do I get my stop back with the FZ50? Or, in other words, how good is ISO200 on the FZ50, if you're prepared to do your very best, i.e. to shoot raw?

If it just about as good as ISO100 on my FZ20, then I'll have one, presently. If it is as ISO200 on the FZ20 or worse, I'll stick to what I have, and allocate my current funds for photography entirely on dSLR accessories.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Image quality is what has concerned me.

You and almost everyone else I would imagine...Which is why you
might be more impressed than you think given a full tryout...

This statement in the review kind of sums it for my type of shooting:

"The really good news is that - despite the FZ50's sensor being
marginally noisier (from an examination of the raw files) than the
FZ30's, at base ISO it produces images that are less noisy, yet
don't suffer from any obvious noise reduction artefacts - at least
not in our studio comparison shot. I was very worried indeed that
the FZ50's Venus III processor would cause problems at low ISO
settings, but it doesn't seem too painful (see the section on noise
reduction for a more thorough examination of the effect on low
contrast detail). We did, however, see evidence of noise and noise
reduction in 'real world' shots taken in lower light."

Again, "at base ISO it produces images that are less noisy, yet
don't suffer from any obvious noise reduction artefacts -"

That's what I believe most of us have been saying all along...The
Venus III is not the smearing monster it's made out to be at the
lower ISO's and good light...

Peace....

LW

I will say that having looked at some of the samples on this site..aka ISO 100 etc...they do seem to be somewhat better than some of the ones posted on the forum. I may have over reacted, but I still find myself left a little wanting as such...

The flipside is that of course the samples here are well exposed, lattitude, and correcting exposure in pp, are areas that also signal you have not a whole lot of room to breath there,,before IQ deteriorates.

As ever...fussy...but over the last few years I have been impressed with the superb work panasonic has done, maybe my expectations are too high, and maybe I thought technology would get so much better...when it doesnt seem to have much.

I am still very much supportive of the bridge camera concept..even as an SLR user....I would like it to really be pushed further...

--

 

[Larry Winters]

Hello BF:

As ever...fussy...but over the last few years I have been impressed with the superb work panasonic has done, maybe my expectations are too high, and maybe I thought technology would get so much better...when it doesnt seem to have much.

I think everyone has gotten a little spoiled with the rapid advances of the past 5 years...There comes a point when diminishing return kicks in and we're there unless sensor technology comes up with more major surprises like the Fuji F30...

Unless my FZ-50 breaks I doubt I'll upgrade for 5 years...

LW

Image quality is what has concerned me.

You and almost everyone else I would imagine...Which is why you
might be more impressed than you think given a full tryout...

This statement in the review kind of sums it for my type of shooting:

"The really good news is that - despite the FZ50's sensor being
marginally noisier (from an examination of the raw files) than the
FZ30's, at base ISO it produces images that are less noisy, yet
don't suffer from any obvious noise reduction artefacts - at least
not in our studio comparison shot. I was very worried indeed that
the FZ50's Venus III processor would cause problems at low ISO
settings, but it doesn't seem too painful (see the section on noise
reduction for a more thorough examination of the effect on low
contrast detail). We did, however, see evidence of noise and noise
reduction in 'real world' shots taken in lower light."

Again, "at base ISO it produces images that are less noisy, yet
don't suffer from any obvious noise reduction artefacts -"

That's what I believe most of us have been saying all along...The
Venus III is not the smearing monster it's made out to be at the
lower ISO's and good light...

Peace....

LW

I will say that having looked at some of the samples on this
site..aka ISO 100 etc...they do seem to be somewhat better than
some of the ones posted on the forum. I may have over reacted, but
I still find myself left a little wanting as such...

The flipside is that of course the samples here are well exposed,
lattitude, and correcting exposure in pp, are areas that also
signal you have not a whole lot of room to breath there,,before IQ
deteriorates.

As ever...fussy...but over the last few years I have been impressed
with the superb work panasonic has done, maybe my expectations are
too high, and maybe I thought technology would get so much
better...when it doesnt seem to have much.

I am still very much supportive of the bridge camera concept..even
as an SLR user....I would like it to really be pushed further...

--

 

[iliask]

What are you talking about?
S

--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com

It was a joke from some earlier posts for another site's review of Panasonic's L1.

Ilias

--
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b207/iliask

 

[thiago_silva]

One thing made me happy with this review:

IQ is VERY similar between the FZ50 and FZ30, and differences disappear if you include PP. So I don't have to regret buying the FZ30 a month before the FZ50 was "revealed" :-D
--
Thiago Silva - http://www.flickr.com/photos/thiagosilva/

• Panny Ef Zee Thirty

'If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera. ' - (Lewis Hine)

 

[C Dyckes]

No, He just realised what we FZ50 OWNERS as opposed to non-owning bashers have already found out, and that is that this camera is capable of taking superb pictures, and the price is a steal in real terms (I paid £399 for my FZ50, but £850 when I bought the Nikon 990 not so many years ago).

p.s. I ordered a 30" x 20" professional print of the orchid pic "p1000121 From Raw_edited-1-1" that I posted on PBase. Might be here tomorrow, otherwise Monday. I'm 99% certain that this camera will produce the goods even on a print this size!

Hope to get out to a wildlife park over the weekend and get some good animal shots.

Thanks for the review!

--
Colin

 

[henkster]

Barry, as one of the first to lay his hands on this camera, he is the expert. Don't question his expertise. He is the know-it-all. Don't know if it is restricted to DC, but I take a sharp guess, that if you were a farmer with being blessed to only have double headed calves, he knows on what is amiss.

P/S, have you really expected anything else? Yahoo has an ignore button, well, I just skip.

I do like a sound discussion, but he is just boring. One knows his his postings without having to read it. Just the sqame old nada, nada, nada......
--
Henk

Donde una puerta se cierra, otra se abre

 

[henkster]

A Kodak Brownie?

Barry - Still waiting for and answer on this thread. Or do just
wish to ignore it?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=19913339

I missed that..sorry. I am not exactly sure what you expect me to
say, despite my edgy criticisms of cameras, I am not a reviewer, or
an expert!

What camera you want depends on your needs/budget and expectations.
With regards testing...I am not a tester!

--

--
Henk

Donde una puerta se cierra, otra se abre

 

[thw]

it shows a change in the criteria used in Phil and Simon's reviews. In the past, it was image quality above everything else. At that time, highly featured cameras like the A1, A2, A200 were penalized because of their weak jpeg engines. But now, starting with the review for the Nikon D2X (rather heavy noise reduction above ISO 400), camaera handling and features have become more important. Hmmm....

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

 

[newe]

Imagine seeing "smearing" in a review....wow...

I think that it is about time this site take a proactive role in slamming hte manufacturers who just pack megapixel upon megapixel and get more and more noise..."smearing" what a joke.

If dpreview would give Average or Not recommended to these cameras may, just maybe someone in these companies would stop the nonsense. 6 megapixels is enough for anyone....lets get rid of the noise....when I see smearing even at low ISO NO camera should get a highly recommended...it really denegrates the review process.

This needs to change....

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

it shows a change in the criteria used in Phil and Simon's reviews.
In the past, it was image quality above everything else. At that
time, highly featured cameras like the A1, A2, A200 were penalized
because of their weak jpeg engines. But now, starting with the
review for the Nikon D2X (rather heavy noise reduction above ISO
400), camaera handling and features have become more important.
Hmmm....

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
-------------------------------------------

Handling is very important...it always was. Problem is what works for one person, doesnt for another...its a hard area to judge.

Image quality...hmm well its a camera! Kinda important in my books...not something to put on the back burner..

If I went out to buy a tasty hifi....I want it to sound good! cameras are the same...image quality is the top area. If it isnt..then we are all stuffed!

I think things have shifted here reviews wise...for the worse IMO..

--

 

[scottisheagle]

Thanks Simon for the informative review .
Clearly you've done a lot of work and spent a lot of thought on it .

(aside.... I would like to hear more on your thoughts on havings Sharpness/Contrast and (OK) noise reduction all on low ?)

But WHY add the "(Just)" Highly Recommended tag ? ?

It's a bit of a back-handed compliment ,
like "You look Great...BUT....."

That sounds ( at least for anyone new to dpreview ) worse than a plain "Recommended" .

ie "It's "just"....

I think it a highly versitile camera , go the whole way ! ( either way ! )

That's my own two cents :->

--

'If all else fails , read the instructions' :->

 

[spider227489]

Thanks Barry. I've been thinking of the Nikon D50 or D70s with the 18-200 mm lens. I do have an FZ30 and another dslr, but am looking for a new one.
Thanks

Just wanted to know what camera you had and how it performs or what
camera you would suggest. You seem to have a fair amount of
knowledge and expertise and was interested in your thoughts.

Lol...I think you will find 9 out of 10 people dont agree with you
on this.

I have the following cameras:

Konica Minolta 5D
Panasonic FZ-5
And some 35mm stuff (which is likely of no interest to you)

What you want depends on what you wish to spend, and what subject
you shoot. Whilst I dont always agree with the reviews here, there
are other sites that also do reviews, these at least give you some
indication of performance and comparisons.

As ever though, nothing beats handling a camera if you have the
chance, or at best borrow one off a friend/relative for a while,
and see how you get on.

I cant give you any more suggestions, unless you indicate what you
are looking for..compact? bridge? SLR? what you expect quality
wise, size, etc are all factors.

the Fz series are good all rounders with good lenses and OIS helps,
if you desire the very best in image quality an SLR will appeal
more, and its more flexible, but larger and more expensive..

There are so many cameras, and so many makes, and while I have used
a fair few, cannot be conclusive on many of them...as I have not
used them. If you are more specific..I can give you my
thoughts..but take them only as that...you must decide for yourself!

As has been pointed out so many times, these are tools, and in the
hands of talent almost all can produce something special...the
weakest link in general is the photographer!

--

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Thanks Barry. I've been thinking of the Nikon D50 or D70s with the
18-200 mm lens. I do have an FZ30 and another dslr, but am looking
for a new one.
Thanks

Ok...just an idea you may want to post a few threads in the nikon forum and others saying you are thinking about it...of course owners are not likely to say its bad...hence post in pentax and canon too if you wish...ask for experiences etc...

Nothing wrong with Nikon..both solid cameras...also look at the Pentax K100 has in body AS....Olympus if you fancy that, sony.....hunt about.

D80 is out now..so depends on the cash, replaces the D70...I would set a budget and stick to it...then decide what else you want.

Being honest I dont see a lot of point getting the D70 over the D50...they are so close its probably not worth spending the extra...thats just my view. D80 is another matter....

--

 

[ibejeremie]

I agree with you that things need to change, however, I dont know if dpreview is the appropriate party to be asking to take immediate, decisive action.

Things will change when:

-Marketing people from ALL companies actually care about their product (not just about selling it)
-The average consumer becomes a VERY well-informed consumer
-People dont judge books by their covers
-I run the world (j/k)

I currently work at a company where marketing is king, no matter how much it costs, or how much the product actually suffers. It is frustrating as an engineer, trust me. But the fact of the matter is that marketing caters to consumers. I used to work in a big box store selling digital cameras. The average consumer came in with very vague desires, and I would guide them to the particular camera (or cameras) that would work for them. I had colleagues who would upsell like crazy because the consumer didnt know any better. Teach the average consumer that more megapixels doesnt directly equate to more resolution, and you might get a lower MP, higher resolution FZ_ .

I think Simon slammed panasonic pretty hard for its noise issues, both in this review, and in the review of the FZ30. In the end, the final rating DPR gives wont determine sales. The average consumer will. If panasonic did make a camera with lower MP and higher resolution, it would only result in lower sales because it is much easier to convince the average consumer to purchase an expensive SLR that has 10MP over a FZ__ that has 6 MP, than it is to convince them to buy that same SLR over the FZ50 that has the same 10MP (the average consumer really does believe that MP=resolution). Lower demand means would mean higher prices. So expect to pay significantly more for that FZ__ with 6 MP, because the average consumer wont be there to bring the price down.

It seems like everyone places too much weight on the final rating. To me, this is just like placing too much weight on megapixels. Lets actually read the reviews, get to know the cameras - that is what is important anyway. And that is what DPR helps us to do.

Lets all stop judging DPR's ability to review; they do a fine job. We should be happy that DPR provides us with these reviews in the first place.

-Jeremy

 

[1971_M5]

Hey...the FZ50 has defined a new rating category!

Do you think there will ever be another review with the "just" tag?

Actually, I thought it was a fine review and everything stated was accurate and balanced. But when you think back to the FZ30 review and contrast that with the current FZ50 review, I believe the frame of reference has been adjusted -- in a positive way. Let's judge the FZ50 (any camera) relative to WHAT IT IS -- not against some absolute. The FZ30 review was not positioned in the same manner. If it had been, then we would probably NOT have been giving the DPReview folks (Simon/Phil) so many elbows in the ribs over the past year!

Again, good review IMO.

Hey everyone! Have FUN with your FZ's!! They are great cams!

--
JF

 

[John Navas]

I think Simon slammed panasonic pretty hard for its noise issues,
both in this review, and in the review of the FZ30. In the end, the
final rating DPR gives wont determine sales. The average consumer
will.

I think DPR has more weight than you give it credit for because it influences early adopters and high-end users that have a big impact on the market through recommendations to average consumers, as companies have found out the hard way when they snub those early adopters and high-end users.

If panasonic did make a camera with lower MP and higher
resolution, it would only result in lower sales because it is much
easier to convince the average consumer to purchase an expensive
SLR that has 10MP over a FZ__ that has 6 MP, than it is to convince
them to buy that same SLR over the FZ50 that has the same 10MP (the
average consumer really does believe that MP=resolution). Lower
demand means would mean higher prices. So expect to pay
significantly more for that FZ__ with 6 MP, because the average
consumer wont be there to bring the price down.

By that reasoning Panasonic should dump the expensive Leica lenses and stick to cheap plastic, except that hasn't worked -- quite a few consumers do care about the glass, especially early adopters and high-end users.

Lets all stop judging DPR's ability to review; they do a fine job.
We should be happy that DPR provides us with these reviews in the
first place.

Sure, but doesn't mean we shouldn't judge them -- to do otherwise would be to abandon our own responsibilities.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
DMC-FZ5K