FZ50 highly recommended...

I thought the purpose of reviews was to provide people with information, not to get involved in politics.

Vote with your feet...you don't like it, don't buy it.
--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse
 
Hey...the FZ50 has defined a new rating category!

Do you think there will ever be another review with the "just" tag?
Well, I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but at least the "just" tag is kind of like throwing a bone to the complain brigade. They still have something to grasp onto. 8^)

Actually, after having the FZ30 for over a year and being very pleased with it overall, despite it getting 'recommended' or whatever it was that's below 'highly', I figure the FZ50 must be pretty good.

When I consider the alternatives of the cameras available a year ago, I'm really glad I'm not the owner of the Samsung combination motor home-camera, or the Fuji with it's phony 'stabilization', or any other of the superzooms. So if a 'recommended' camera beats those, the new 'just highly' model should be something.
--
Gary
Photo albums: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse
 
for the fz5 to get HR and yet the fz30 and fz7 to not get it, that
makes no intuitive sense to me.
I can understand it even if I didn't agree with the FZ30 R only.

Because of its size and price, the FZ30 had to fight entry DSLRs,
the FZ5/7 are another size/price level so shouldn't be compared
to the FZ30/50. And the FZ30 had somewhat higher noise levels.
Whilst for the FZ30 it may have been marginal the FZ7 has got a
noise problem IMHO. Competition from Canon and Sony was also
tougher for the FZ7.

So in a way it makes sense, even though IMHO the FZ30 had so
much over the S3 IS which cost nearly as much (in some markets
at least) when the FZ30 was reviewed so I would have expected a
HR.
the FZ5 was £425 on launch, £25 MORE than the Still in production
FZ20 ! it dropped to £399 pretty quickly and stayed there for ages
Can that be correct? I payed roughly that amount but in euros (!) when
the FZ5 was new.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden
Using the F Z 5

 
... read the whole thing. Thanks, Simon.

For now, I'm going to stay with my DSLR and A610 that suit my needs. It isn't just the process of taking the picture in which the FZ50, I believe, would excel, but the final product, the image itself that is important to me. So I will wait for better quality.

As Simon says (LOL), it's a matter of personal preference, not a judgment against this camera meeting other peoples' needs.

-- Kate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...Make you the world a bit better or more beautiful because you have lived in it.
-- Edward W. Bok
 
IF dpreview has no clout then why the nonsense rating here "just
barely". When I see reviews of Fuji S3 as Above Average, from a
company that wrote the book on low noise, then I see Panasonic's
smear infested, "barely useable" ISOs I gotta think that something
is wrong.
I dont see how bringing up the S3 review is relevant. It seems like you already have something against the reviewers, because they rated the fuji lower than you thought was fair. Each camera is rated relative to its direct competitors, and the S3 was lagging in several aspects.
This panasonic was slammed only in the wording and not in the final
recommendationm, which does show the inconsistent nature of the
reviews here. This was obviously a camera made just to sell a
camera, and this review site needs to let everyone know by a poor
recommendation.
I dont see any inconsistency. The panasonic has a single drawback: high iso image quality. Keep in mind that the direct competitors of this camera also have this drawback, though, to a lesser degree. The camera is not judged based on a single aspect, rather, on the overall performance. Personally, I think the "just barely" qualifier holds significant importance. The review even says the camera is HR only for "those users who can live without anything over ISO 200."
I must admit I will not read the reviews as much now....this is poor.
This is poor. I believe that one can learn a lot by reading these reviews. The most important thing that can be learned is whether you are one of the users that would really enjoy a particular camera, whether it was rated "above average" or "highly recommended."

-Jeremy
 
Everybody can see that this NR thing is over the edge....What's the
use to make the NR settings "high, higher and Highest?"

Aaaaaaaaaaargrh!!!!
Yep that is exactly how it feels, even at its lowest I think it trumpts Venus II noise reduction by a mile in pixel talk that is.

--
glitchbit: getting rid of the glitch bits



my image gallery will be up soon

 
Hello to all

Barry I for one was not waiting for your comments, I'm not sure if you think everyone is really slow , but you have been singing the same song for so longthat it is getting a bit tiresome, besides it is only your opinion , and it is free and in retrospect i think that is all it is worth, now go hide under a rock
ken
 
Well, I'm not going to comment on any rating given to this model by Simon or Phil - it's their site. They do extensive reviews and base things on a variety of criteria.

That being said, I would personally specify that the camera is ok for photo bugs who enjoy an all-in-one camera and who will not make prints above 8x10 (if that). But if you're going to try to aspire to things like selling your photos to stock agencies for sale (even microstocks) I think they will most likely laugh you out of the ballpark looking at the images from this.

For prints and everyday shots they're fine, as 100% inspection is not necessary for standard prints or web shots. Stock agencies and other sources (newspapers, etc) DO however inspect images at 100% and they must meet strict criteria to pass. So for those wanting an all-in-one for everyday use I say fine, but if you want to hit the semi-pro sales force, no way.

On a personal note, in terms of image quality, I would say to Panasonic, "If this is the best you can do in 2006 - stick to televisions". Photos should look like photos - at iso 400+ the FZ50 images look like impressionist paintings. :-/
 
Hello to all
Barry [SNIP]
ken
That's totally uncalled for and inappropriate.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ5K
 
If there had been a shift (which there hasn't) wouldn't the 20 page
review be enough for the really obsessive IQ junkie to make their
own mind up? I feel it would be wrong to give an AA to a camera
that is as good as this because it doesn't meet MY criteria for
image quality ( and i've pulled no punches in the review in this
regard ). Whatever I do there is critisism (i marked the FZ30 down
for minor IQ reasons and have never heard the end of it), and i
feel the FZ50 is good enough to squeeze an HR - you don't; so don't
buy one. Incidentally there is NO WAY manufacturers are going to
drop out of the pixel race because of what we say. I wish!
Even though I personally don't need more MP, I have no objection to the pixel race. My objection is to increased noise and crappy noise reduction. So please just keep hammering away on the noise issues without pulling punches (as I think you did, "just" a bit, on the FZ50, in a review that was otherwise very good).

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ5K
 
I dont see how bringing up the S3 review is relevant. It seems like
you already have something against the reviewers, because they
rated the fuji lower than you thought was fair. Each camera is
rated relative to its direct competitors, ...
I sure hope not, because that would greatly diminish the value of the ratings. Best of a sorry lot shouldn't get the same rating as best of tough competition.
This panasonic was slammed only in the wording and not in the final
recommendationm, which does show the inconsistent nature of the
reviews here. This was obviously a camera made just to sell a
camera, and this review site needs to let everyone know by a poor
recommendation.
I dont see any inconsistency. The panasonic has a single drawback:
high iso image quality.
The Con list is much longer than that.
Keep in mind that the direct competitors of
this camera also have this drawback, though, to a lesser degree.
Then the HR isn't deserved.
The camera is not judged based on a single aspect, rather, on the
overall performance. Personally, I think the "just barely"
qualifier holds significant importance. The review even says the
camera is HR only for "those users who can live without anything
over ISO 200."
I think DPReview probably needs a more precise final ranking (like some other reviewers); e.g., a scale of 1 to 10 where 8 or higher is HR. That way the FZ50 could be an 8 HR, while still clearly ranking below higher HR rankings.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ5K
 
Sometimes I wonder if people from the forums here actually read the
whole review at all but instead just look at the ISO crops, the
Compared to last page and the Finale waiting in baited breath for
the final rating - but then these reviews are for everyone on the
net, not just the Fanboys and Bashers on these Forums..
I personally think the Pros and Cons have a lot more to say about the rating than the rating itself.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ5K
 
So many wait on these "godly" reviews and will not make a step
without it. All the Naysayers said wait till the review and we
will all see how bad the FZ50 is and now that it got a better
rating, "its only a review!"
I am not sure if you were responding to my post or to everyone in general, but if you re-read my post I was referring to the rating, not the review :-) Rating = A couple of words such as Recommended/highly-rec/above-average
Review = the complete review, all pages, tests, samples, text, etc

The rating is just a rating. The review itself is a whole lot more important :)
People want it both ways, I personally have never waiting on these
reviews and feel sorry for anyone who needs this to make a camera
purchase. It used to be that Phil got these cameras first but now
there is more than enough info from owners before the review is
even posted!

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
D Two Xs
Leica M7
--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com
 
Sometimes I wonder if people from the forums here actually read the
whole review at all but instead just look at the ISO crops, the
Compared to last page and the Finale waiting in baited breath for
the final rating - but then these reviews are for everyone on the
net, not just the Fanboys and Bashers on these Forums..
I personally think the Pros and Cons have a lot more to say about
the rating than the rating itself.
The rating is just a rating. It may be a matter of pride, prestige, debate, marketing, etc, but what really matters when evaluating/purchasing a camera is the content of the review.

Besides the conclusion page usually gives the rationale behind the rating decision, so it's not like the rating just fell out the sky.

ps> If you are using a satellite ISP the ratings do fall out of the sky ;-)
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ5K
--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com
 
I have been waiting 2 years for a true upgrade to my FZ20.

The FZ50 does NOT deliver the low light capabilities and high ISO that I need - so I am keeping my beloved FZ20.

Will I wait for the FZ60? Probably not.

I have decided to take the DSLR path (mentally ready for it) !!!

Bye-bye Panasonic . . .

Nikon/Canon here I come . . .

--
Ori

Panasonic FZ20
http://picasaweb.google.com/ori.akstein
 
BF wrote Next years model will go out and take its own pictures,
automatically download to your computer - and then present the
prints to you, with a fresh cup of coffee while you enjoy!

I don't like coffee so does that mean it still can't have a Highly
Recommended
Luckily for you... instead of low, normal & hi, the usual in-cam parameters... For this particular feature there'll be Coffee, Tea or whiskey... Or when in Baby mode.. Milk, juice or Koolaid
;

--

The Amateur Formerly Known as 'UZ'pShoot'ERS' 'Happy Shootin' Comments, Critique, Ridicule, Limmericks, Jokes, Hi-jackings, EnthUZIastically, Encouraged... I Insist!



* [email protected] * http://www.pbase.com/rrawzz * EffZeeThreeZero / CeeEightZeroEightZeroDoubleUZee / CeeTwoOneZeroZeroUZee / EOneHuderedAreEss
 
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.)
Actually, both the FZ30 and FZ50 have two-wheel control
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.
Well, although some argue the 5MP-to-8MP was not that big a jump, and then the 8MP-to-10MP wasn't that big a jump, the 5MP-to-10MP is actually a pretty big step. No, it's not really doubling the resolution, we've all read about how you have to quadruple to double.

But, from what I read in the review, despite the extra noise in the FZ50 sensor, for 4x6 prints the extra pixels make the noise (or losss of detail from VII NR smearing) unnoticeable.

I guess you could test and compare yourself; there are test pics of the same studio shot for both the FZ20 and the FZ50. Download, print (at your desired size), and see if you like the FZ50 as much, more, or less than the FZ20.

--Greg
 
Great review. It's no surprise that the XT completely destroys the FZ50 at higher ISOs. I was wondering why there was no comparison with the D50. I have a feeling the FZ50 would outperform the D50.
 
I guess I'm still annoyed that the fz30 (which I think was panys
best superzoom, still, to-date) got a lower grade than the
image-inferior fz50.
While I agree the FZ30 should have also gotten an HR, I've looked at the FZ30-FZ50 comparison shots, and I just don't see how you can call the FZ50 "image-inferior." Do you mean after PP?

I looked at the higher-ISO shots, and the blacks on the FZ30 looked more greyish to me. The FZ50 blacks looked smeared, but they looked BLACK.

--Greg
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top