questions about DMC-FZ50

Hi folks. long time dpreview reader, first time poster.

Until recently I owned a Canon Powershot S2 IS. For what it was, It was a very good camera and I took some amazing shots with it (Orang Utans and monkeys in malaysia a particular highlight). Like all the other super zoom point and shoots, it was pretty bad with noise at high ISO (200 was decent not great, 400 worthless) and had limited aperture settings, but I was largely willing to accept these limitations for the convenience the camera offered.

anyway, I lost the S2 IS recently and have been looking for a replacement. The obvious candidate was the S3 IS, but I'm hoping to get something that takes slightly better shots. I'm not ready to go down the DSLR path just yet so the DMC-FZ50 seems like the natural candidate.

So a question for FZ50/FZ7/FZ5 owners:

1. do you think the trade off in handling, bulk and image quality between the Pana FZ50 and the smaller Pana FZ7/FZ5 (or Canon S2/S3 for that matter) favors the Z50. I realize this is somewhat subjective, but I'm interested in hearing a variety of opinions.

and a more technical question for any takers about shooting with the FZ50 in low light:

2. when taking shots at high ISO (Say 400 or above) with the intention of producing a 3 megapixel shot, do you get better results by (a) shooting 10MP RAW then later processing/down scaling to 3MP in software OR (b) selecting the lower rez directly in the camera. I'm thinking (b) could only be better if the onboard camera processing performas some magic tricks that can't be emulated in software. I'd be interested to SEE some comparisons here, if anyone has tried such a thing...

thanks
Damien

dmoore said:

and a more technical question for any takers about shooting with
the FZ50 in low light:

2. when taking shots at high ISO (Say 400 or above) with the
intention of producing a 3 megapixel shot, do you get better
results by (a) shooting 10MP RAW then later processing/down scaling
to 3MP in software OR (b) selecting the lower rez directly in the
camera. I'm thinking (b) could only be better if the onboard camera
processing performas some magic tricks that can't be emulated in
software. I'd be interested to SEE some comparisons here, if anyone
has tried such a thing...

Click to expand...

I cannot answer this DIRECTLY, but don't forget you may not have to shoot at higher ISO with the optical image stabilization in the FZ50. Three more stops is common. People report amazingly slow shutter speeds for hand-held shots. I don't know what type image stabilization you had before but I rarely need a tripod and have few worries with slow shutter speed. You can usually keep your setting at ISO of 100.

I just got my new FZ50 today; my FZ7 is on Ebay and will sell tonight. It's too early for me to say how I'll feel about the tradeoff in size / handling / image quality between the two but I can make a few observations. First, I wanted the FZ50 for the manual features (zoom & focus), and for the type of shooting I do (lower ISO) I expect to get better image quality from the FZ50 (though the FZ7 is no slouch). Second, I didn't have a store to check one out in advance so my initial impression of the FZ50 is 'wow!' it is significantly bigger and heavier than the FZ7. Third, the FZ7 is a remarkable little brother to the FZ50, it's like the little engine that could and I imagine that there will be times I'll miss that super light little FZ7. Still, I did want to be able to shoot in RAW, I think the FZ50 overall is less noisy too (though I'm admittedly not wild about the Venus III).

I'm not having any second thoughts - it was a bit of a decision to move to the FZ50 since I was fond of my FZ7. If I could have justified the expense I'd have kept it along with buying the FZ50.

Jim in TX said:

I cannot answer this DIRECTLY, but don't forget you may not have to
shoot at higher ISO with the optical image stabilization in the
FZ50. Three more stops is common. People report amazingly slow
shutter speeds for hand-held shots. I don't know what type image
stabilization you had before but I rarely need a tripod and have
few worries with slow shutter speed. You can usually keep your
setting at ISO of 100.

Click to expand...

Thanks for responding and very good point. The Canon S2 had pretty good image stabilization too. The type of shots i'm thinking of are in poorly lit smokey jazz halls where flash isn't possible and low ISO just won't cut it: (photo attached)



Canon S2 IS, ISO 400, 1/50 sec exposure, F3.5, 48.6mm
(color is a little weird)

you can't really see the noise at this size (original was 5mp), so here's a crop: (photo attached)



I imagine this is pretty similar to what you would get out of the FZ5/7

this isn't the sort of shot i take very often, but it would be still be nice to improve on ...

I have both - S3 IS and FZ50 and without all the technical reasons why, I invariably choose the FZ50 for everything - - except video, the S3 is still the best in that department, you won't be disappointed in the quality or the performance of the FZ50

--
peter

Images of Algonquin
http://home.cogeco.ca/~pferguson23/

I take a lot of photos of small music bands in clubs. The FZ7 definitely has more noise, and review after review will say the same thing. Canons are usable for a stop higher than Panasonics. Maybe two.

Personally, I think the decision is best made between the smaller size and convenience of the FZ7, and the superior IQ of a DSLR. The FZ50 is much larger than the FZ7, but the image quality & issues are very similar.

If most of your shooting involves ISO higher than 200 then stay away from FZ50 or any other panasonic model and in that case your only satisfactory choice would be a DSLR.... or you may consider a Fuji, although I have no experience with Fuji's long zooms....... if you decide to go with Panasonic, then FZ50 should be the natural choice.
aftab

I know precisely what your basic concerns and questions are concering these two cameras in review here. Meaning, of course, the Panasonic DMC-FZ50 and the Canon model specified.

Without get all long winded and typing out a bunch of techy stuff already posted (here and else where), I would, quite simply, just purchase the DMC-FZ50 (black or silver). All of this "comparison business" is okay, I would suppose, but a person can, quite literally, drive themselves insane with too much information constipation and that sort of thing.

All of the issues that you are concerned with (this is only natural) are addressed in the 143 page owners manual that comes with the DMC-FZ50. Of course, reading boring owners manuals is something that I KNOW most folks don't like to do, including myself. I tortured myself with this whole camera comparing task for about three weeks (reading and researching about 6 hours per day) and finally I just got sick and tired of it all and bought the Panasonic DMC-FZ50K. Do I think I made a mistake? The answer is NO. I hope this post helped you in some small way :-O)
--
There is only one stupid question and that is the one that is not asked

The FZ50 is a great camera, despite anything you might read about it!

The Canon S3IS is more of a glorified point and shoot with a long zoom lens, so the two cameras are not really comparable to each other.

I've yet to experience the noise issues that many seem to think the FZ50 has!

Of course, most of those who pi$$ and moan about the Panasonic noise issue don't even own a Panasonic . . . just write or read about them and try to make others believe it as fact!

I also own a Fuji (similar to the FZ's) and it is one sweet camera as well!

I will say that the Fuji S6000fd does give better quality images at high ISO's than the FZ50, but the FZ50 is no slouch, either!

As I've mentioned many times in other topics here, I find it humorous that many people today expect ISO 3200 images to be just as sharp as those shot at ISO 100!

In over 100 years of film they couldn't get it that way, so why do people expect it with digital?

--
John M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado

Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 and Fuji S602Z owner and operator

Thanks to all who offered feedback.

Based on opinions/more reading/photo comparisons I'm now about 80% for the FZ50, 10% for going with the canon S3 IS and 10% waiting and eventually buying a DSLR (previously it was 45/45/10)

If the shots in the reviews here are at all reliable, then there is a noticeable quality gain going with the FZ50 over a FZ7 or canon S3 IS and the manual focus is a real draw. I'm slightly put off by the bulk since it probably won't fit into a jacket pocket like i could with the Canon S2

seeing all the excellent bird pics, here's my entry, taken about 5 months ago in Wyoming:



ISO100, 78mm, 1/125sec, F4, -0.33EV

who knows how much better it could have been with an FZ50

after a pass with "neat image"

You're right, the FZ50 won't easily fit in your coat pocket - but it's one heck of a solid, well-made camera; it just has a look and feel of quality about it, very impressive. Bearing in mind that anything short of a DSLR is likely to have some noise issues, you need to figure how much of what kind of shooting you're going to do in order to determine which camera is most suitable - and within your budget. In my case I don't have a lot of low-light or indoor shooting to do, and the my FZ50 will do a terrific job for me without going to the expen$e and bulk of a DSLR system.

I was just looking at the pockets of my heavy winter coat . . .

And the S3IS won't fit in any of them, either!

--
John M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado

MusicDoctorDJ said:

I was just looking at the pockets of my heavy winter coat . . .

And the S3IS won't fit in any of them, either!

Click to expand...

guess I have big pockets. felt safer carrying a camera around in my pocket while hiking than having it around my neck. more convenient than a back pack, too.

Another question:

where are people getting the TCON17 from, for how much and which TCON17 is it?

there are at least 3 tcons on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-6197822-7335126?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=tcon&Go.x=0&Go.y=0 - the cheapest for $30 is an absolute steal, although i suspect that isn't the right one.

what about the TCON30?

MusicDoctorDJ said:

I will say that the Fuji S6000fd does give better quality images at
high ISO's than the FZ50, but the FZ50 is no slouch, either!

Click to expand...

Keeping in mind Fuji doesn't have image stabilization.

--
FZ7 + TC-E17ED

bkrownd said:

Keeping in mind Fuji doesn't have image stabilization.

--

Click to expand...

I personally find one of these much more useful than image stabilization.

--
John M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado

Panasonic FZ10 & FZ50 owner

MusicDoctorDJ said:

I personally find one of these much more useful than image
stabilization.

Click to expand...

I have one of those. It helps, but image stabilization is still necessary.

--
FZ7 + TC-E17ED

I have recommended the canon s3is to a couple of friends who I know, can not handle the more complex and bigger FZ50, though I have bought an fz50 for my self, because i know its weaknesses well enough to get around them. For me the canon is a no match for the fz50.

Regarding your second inquiry about whether it is better to shoot 10mp and then convert it into 3 mp on a computer or just shoot at 3 mp, i would suggest you shoot at 10mp and then downsize it to whatever size you want, it is a better option. I say this because if you shoot at 3mp, it is fine as long as the zoom is at wide end, if you zoom then the camera starts to use less and less area of the sensor- progressively and ultimately at about 70mm zoom only the center 3 mp part of the sensor is used (called the ez). Good when you need that extra zoom. I have found that you can not turn the ez thing off, that is if you want to shoot at 5mp and don't want the extra zoom you can not, but not a big deal. So friend shoot at 10mp and down size latter on the computer. The images will turn out fantastic. Go get it!!!!!!
--
Art for everyone!!!

Duni said:

Regarding your second inquiry about whether it is better to shoot
10mp and then convert it into 3 mp on a computer or just shoot at 3
mp, i would suggest you shoot at 10mp and then downsize it to
whatever size you want, it is a better option.

Click to expand...

I would agree, and I have not yet been able to reconcile Panasonic's claim that the opposite is true. The manual -- or something online -- definitely states that you get more accutance using Extreme Zoom than with a computer crop.

Logic tells me it is not true. I would like to hear the WHY behind the claim.

Jim in TX said:

Duni said:

Regarding your second inquiry about whether it is better to shoot
10mp and then convert it into 3 mp on a computer or just shoot at 3
mp, i would suggest you shoot at 10mp and then downsize it to
whatever size you want, it is a better option.

Click to expand...

I would agree, and I have not yet been able to reconcile
Panasonic's claim that the opposite is true. The manual -- or
something online -- definitely states that you get more accutance
using Extreme Zoom than with a computer crop.

Logic tells me it is not true. I would like to hear the WHY behind
the claim.

Click to expand...

I see nothing in terms of resolution that could support this.

But there is a good point about metering. If you will crop, it is much better to do the metering in the area you will crop. Like levels in PP: you have to apply levels after you crop, not before. So, with EZ, you meter only where it matters, and you will have a better exposed shot.

HTH,
L.