Reading mode: Light Dark

FZ50 highly recommended...

Go to last post
Well i think the kit lenses are behind the FZ50 at low ISO but some pretty good lenses at not a lot more than the FZ series.
Greg Erker said:
I was wondering about that comment too (given the K100D 2-lens kit
being well regarded).

What part of the baby's bum BTW? :-) :-)

Greg
Click to expand...
--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
 
AWESOME REVIEW!

Very detailed- Clearly Simon, you've answered our wishes with all the new tests (fur iso test, in camera pict adjust settings test, and even a test vs. a 350 rebel, and Fuji!)

VERY comprehensive. I actually loved all the pics and comparisons but came to other conclusions than you.

I don't see the details that are smeared away like many here discuss- I guess at that point I feel the pixel peeping is just too much. And I was suprised there was no comment about improved exposure of the FZ50- as IMHO the color of the studio shot of the FZ30 was way too bright (that flurscent green plastic thing for starters)

All the people that cried foul re: the FZ30 review, I clearly felt the camera chassis was a huge improvement- but the LACK of custom features or quick menu switching (something that was sorely missing in the FZ20 IMHO) and the poor flip screen of the FZ30 coupled with a Venus 2 image that was almost no different than the FZ20 (albeit less red- but more green) I feel the "recommended" was right on the mark.

The FZ50 addresses all of my complaints- and as a consumer looking for an upgrade to the FZ20 PRIMARILY with images needing less PP I think I'd be very happy w/ the 50- but I do admit, your proof in the shots w/ high iso from the Canon does make one wonder.

Just a thought Simon- I'd have loved to see shots from the Canon's kit lens rather than an F1.4 prime- and I'd love to see a comparison of the canon using a budget priced Tamron F4 70-300 zoom lens.

That's the real question IMHO- Sure I can get a DSLR (Sony A100 looks tempting) but the size of the glass for the zoom range loss leaving the FZ realm scares me-(that's big and heavy for an everyday hike) I use zoom 12x and higher if I had the Ex mode of the 50...

All that being said- if Panny did a firmware upgrade w/ a slider to have better control of the overall NR being done from NONE to what it does currently- would all the haters around here all of a sudden LOVE this camera?

--
Check out my FZ galleries: http://www.brandondj.smugmug.com/
 
In the RGB noise graph on p7, I believe the green curve should be the FZ50? There are two curves that are labelled FZ30 and it looks like they should parallel the luminance curves above.

Very thougtful, careful review. I like the extra tests comparing different in-camera settings, and the fine detail resolution comparisons. Well done.
--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
 
who have taken the time to test/examine properly exposed shots...

Also, thank you Simon and Phil for a very comprehensive review and for truly giving the FZ-50 the accolades it deserves...

LW
Copusmaximus said:
He must have felt the pressure
--
If I have uploaded an image don't hesitate to de-noise it, correct
the WB, clone out dust and dead pixels, saturation, USM, resize,
print and send me the result..
Also advice and criticise.

Kind Rgds

Heath

(The Amateur amateur in training)
LX1
FZ30
S7000(in sons hands now(sometimes))
Tcon17
Raynox DCR 150 & DCR 250 Mcon40
Nikon SB24+omnibounce
Tripod
CamCane

Click to expand...
 
I shall have to be polite though!!! lol

SJ and PA are reviewers, they make their minds up. In this case I feel that a HR rating supports the idea of, as SJ puts it..."pixel stuffing", whats more pressing though is the advantages gained in the 8 to 10mp increase, are as indicated...almost none.

I am fussy IQ wise..more so than most, and frankly..being blunt, I see numbers over substance in this case, (though by no means limited to one maker). My personal choice would be to take a critical viewpoint of this, as it something being used to enhance appeal...rather than deliver concrete improvements.

On the other hand, I may have been too negative, (and yes shock, I am prepared to say it) Its clear that in some areas there are improvements, swivel lcd..AF etc...thats good. battery life etc etc..

A reduced price over the FZ-30 RRP last year doesn't hurt either.

But at the end of the day I am left feeling that this is a 10mp camera, that doesnt perform like one, in terms of output. 10mp to me says "print real big"...the shots I see dont bear this out..to me. But I concede not everyone wants/needs A3 wall prints.

Clearly this isnt the camera for me, or people who want that option, and insist on better IQ..I am left feeling cold with the prints I have made, and somewhat disappointed that this newer model doesnt push real image quality to the forefront. I would liked to have seen something a bit fresher...this feels like a re-hash on a good but flawed camera, and this isnt any better really. A 28mm start off, AF linked metering, bigger LCD..faster lens..but then maybe I ask for too much!

I wouldnt even think twice about this as a second camera..if it delivered in the IQ dept. I dont expect it to match an SLR, or to have great ISO 1600...but to me this is the same song with a different piano player...higher ISO is still not usable for serious work. You still fear to tread over ISO 100.

A decent 400 and ok ish 800 are the order of the day, and this clearly isnt possible with so many pixels on the sensor. It would have been a brave company that reduced the megapixels to get this...but one that would have got heaps of respect from me. Still limited dynamic range...is another almost forgotten area of importance.

I respect Simon and his right to decide himself, but on this particular review, I feel it sends the wrong signals to manufacturers...that numbers are good, and real improvements dont matter. Simply pumping up the NR processing isnt an advance in my books..but then thats life.

I could go on, but I have to respect DP, Simon and Phil, and this time, I very much do not agree with the final verdict. Nor would I have supported it for any other maker either.

(ok I am bracing myself for the response! lol)

--

 
Wonder if these guys can actually do pre press color correction?
Seems to me that they like the Cannon better. FishHawk
 
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
Barry Fitzgerald said:
I shall have to be polite though!!! lol

SJ and PA are reviewers, they make their minds up. In this case I
feel that a HR rating supports the idea of, as SJ puts it..."pixel
stuffing", whats more pressing though is the advantages gained in
the 8 to 10mp increase, are as indicated...almost none.

I am fussy IQ wise..more so than most, and frankly..being blunt, I
see numbers over substance in this case, (though by no means
limited to one maker). My personal choice would be to take a
critical viewpoint of this, as it something being used to enhance
appeal...rather than deliver concrete improvements.

On the other hand, I may have been too negative, (and yes shock, I
am prepared to say it) Its clear that in some areas there are
improvements, swivel lcd..AF etc...thats good. battery life etc
etc..

A reduced price over the FZ-30 RRP last year doesn't hurt either.

But at the end of the day I am left feeling that this is a 10mp
camera, that doesnt perform like one, in terms of output. 10mp to
me says "print real big"...the shots I see dont bear this out..to
me. But I concede not everyone wants/needs A3 wall prints.

Clearly this isnt the camera for me, or people who want that
option, and insist on better IQ..I am left feeling cold with the
prints I have made, and somewhat disappointed that this newer model
doesnt push real image quality to the forefront. I would liked to
have seen something a bit fresher...this feels like a re-hash on a
good but flawed camera, and this isnt any better really. A 28mm
start off, AF linked metering, bigger LCD..faster lens..but then
maybe I ask for too much!

I wouldnt even think twice about this as a second camera..if it
delivered in the IQ dept. I dont expect it to match an SLR, or to
have great ISO 1600...but to me this is the same song with a
different piano player...higher ISO is still not usable for serious
work. You still fear to tread over ISO 100.

A decent 400 and ok ish 800 are the order of the day, and this
clearly isnt possible with so many pixels on the sensor. It would
have been a brave company that reduced the megapixels to get
this...but one that would have got heaps of respect from me. Still
limited dynamic range...is another almost forgotten area of
importance.

I respect Simon and his right to decide himself, but on this
particular review, I feel it sends the wrong signals to
manufacturers...that numbers are good, and real improvements dont
matter. Simply pumping up the NR processing isnt an advance in my
books..but then thats life.

I could go on, but I have to respect DP, Simon and Phil, and this
time, I very much do not agree with the final verdict. Nor would I
have supported it for any other maker either.

(ok I am bracing myself for the response! lol)

--

Click to expand...
 
Brian Mosley said:
And while we're at it, I seem to remember this quote :

"A troll posts to provoke a response....I just give you my
view....people may well eat a few words after the reviews are
out..."

Yum yum... would you like a little salt with those words Barry?

Kind Regards

Brian
Click to expand...
Note the word "reviews" not review.

You can have you view, and I shall have mine

--

 
Simon Joinson said:
PS ever heard the phrase 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'...?
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
Click to expand...
I though for a minute I was in megapixel.net.

If your reviews are now based on forums' pressure or advertising dollars (Euros if you preffer), then I'm loosing faith in DPR.

Why do I have a feeling that Phil will give a "Highly Recommended" rating to the L1?

Ilias

--
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b207/iliask
 
MrXpress said:
Simon, I wonder why you didn't compare the FZ50 to the FZ7,
however. In the same way that one touts the 50 as having
almost-DSLR image quality for substantially less, couldn't one say
the same thing about the 7? I'm willing to bet that the 7 would
compare more favorably to the 50 than the 50 did to the Rebel XT.
Click to expand...
I, too, would have been interested to see FZ7 comparisons, but for a different reason - the 50 is a logical camera for 7 users to be considering at the time of any trade-up. However, can't have everything and I understand why the comparison cameras that were chosen...were chosen (and, in any event, a less-than-perfect comparison could be done manually by calling up the old FZ7 review).

If I had any surprise at all, it was when Simon applauded Panasonic for being a manufacturer that listens to users and reviewers - based on some of his earlier comments about meeting with Panasonic, I wondered whether the Company might be criticized for not listening (at least on the megapixel/NR issue) as I had gotten the sense that Simon had perhaps advocated against the FZ50/VII approach to the company but that his pleadings had fallen on deaf ears, so to speak.

Finally, I'm in the camp that is un-moved by the final tag-line. While I find it interesting that DPR had to wrestle with the final decision in this regard, the DPR reviews are otherwise so meaty that I can't imagine how that final sentence should have much effect on the serious reader's conclusions regarding a camera or any buying decision. As others have pointed out, that's the beauty of these reviews - they allow the reader to make up his or her own mind.

However, it does make for a good flashpoint for forum users to debate over (and less-than-secure-FZ30-owners to fret over...but no names, heheheh).
 
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.
Barry Fitzgerald said:
spider said:
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
Click to expand...
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!

--

Click to expand...
 
Hello dear friends,

thanks Simon and Phil for this very intense review. You must have spent a lo of time with this camera and must have even taken it to bed with you to explore into the depth you are presenting to us in this review. Well done folks!

The HR ist justified i think, even if Barry thinks otherwise. But as he always points out ... every one has a mind of his own and his own priorities, when it comes down to judging cameras.

But there is one thing i would like to be teached by you or anyone.

In the comparison FZ50 vs. Fuji 9000 the review says, that the Fuji is presenting a lot more detail. My point is: I can't really see a big difference in details. Can someone point me to the parts of the picture, where the 9x00 shows its big advantage over the fZ50 ?

Cheers,
Gerd
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Let your own reasoning be your guide, not other people's opinions.
 
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
 
Also, before I forget, kudos to Simon for asking Panasonic to add a setting which would allow NR to be turned off (or at least significantly reduced) while shooting JPEGs! Let's hope that Panasonic hears this! (And yes, I've signed the petition.)

Zack
 
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
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Brian Mosley said:
And while we're at it, I seem to remember this quote :

"A troll posts to provoke a response....I just give you my
view....people may well eat a few words after the reviews are
out..."

Yum yum... would you like a little salt with those words Barry?

Kind Regards

Brian
Click to expand...
Note the word "reviews" not review.

You can have you view, and I shall have mine

--

Click to expand...
 
spider said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!

--

 
iliask said:
Simon Joinson said:
PS ever heard the phrase 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'...?
S
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
Click to expand...
I though for a minute I was in megapixel.net.

If your reviews are now based on forums' pressure or advertising
dollars (Euros if you preffer), then I'm loosing faith in DPR.

Why do I have a feeling that Phil will give a "Highly Recommended"
rating to the L1?

Ilias

--
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b207/iliask
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?
S

--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
 
Larry Winters said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

--

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top