Sending my FZ100 back to the store

I so wanted to love this FZ100 camera. My FZ28 was terrific for two years and 50,000 images. Now all sorts of strange behavior tells me that it is about to die. So I bought an FZ100

I have spent two days doing exhaustive tests and conclude that digital noise makes it unacceptable. Blue sky and dark areas on clouds look awful due to noise. I took at least 25 different scenes with both the FZ28 and FZ100. The FZ28 produces much sharper detail in bushes and has much less noise. The sky looks clear, not blotchy as with the FZ100. This is true at the lowest ISO setting. I tried all that I could on the FZ100 including reducing resolution, trying all the settings for contrast, sharpening, image quality, etc. Sorry to conclude that I must give up. No settings that I tried allowed photos to be as good as my FZ28.

So, now I am going to get an FZ35 or 40. Perhaps the CMOS sensor in the FZ100 is the cause of reduced image quality. Or, maybe it is the longer zoom range, or it is the way images are compressed for JPEG.

I am not sure which is best for me, FZ35 or 40. Thanks for any comments.

shaping up as the Maginot model for Panasonic. Good luck with your next purchase.
Billy

"The Maginot Line has come to mean a strategy or object that people put hope into but fails miserably." Wikipedia.

Yes. that sounds like the experience some people are having with the FZ100. Panasonic will likely continue its march into uncharted territory with this model, both increasing the number of megapixels it packs into the same small sensor, and the zoom length, thinking if people will buy it, it must be good.

Hark! What's that I hear? It's the March of the Marketing Men.

--
It is the 21st Century and I still prefer to read books on paper, not plastic.

good grief... sounds scary what you say about the FZ100... seems the FZ50 was better...

I heaard that the FZ30 is better than the FZ40... but that's only what I gleamed out of this forum.-....

"an artist, a man, a failure, must proceed" e e cummings

Desertbill said:

I so wanted to love this FZ100 camera. My FZ28 was terrific for two years and 50,000 images. Now all sorts of strange behavior tells me that it is about to die. So I bought an FZ100

I have spent two days doing exhaustive tests and conclude that digital noise makes it unacceptable.

Click to expand...

Despite spending a lot of time experimenting with the FZ100 I'm beginning to head for the same noise conclusion. A lot of my work is grainy, brutal and processed, so noise doesn't matter quite so much, but for the straight realistic shots the noise does become intrusive. I too wanted to love it, and it's a damn sight more convenient that my old DSLR, but yes I am now struggling.

I'm quite looking at the Fujifilm HS20 as reasonably similar in a number of ways, especially the long zoom, and may road test one soon.

Hi Desertbill,

I had the same experience and bought the FZ 40/45. I took test shots in a shop and viewed them on my 50 inch plasma - the results were unaccaptable.

I reseached on the web and thought the 40/45 might be better and bought it 2 days ago.

You have to do your custom settings for the best result like limiiting ISO, contrast, sharpening, NR settings etc.

The FZ 40 has better handeling, feels just better and more sophisticated. Color phots are much better. BW - here I love the FZ 28!! I have clearer photos with more detail on the FZ 40 but the FZ 28 can produce some absolute magic in BW at least with my settings - could not get the FZ 40 working the same way.

But it is 'differrent" not better, most people might prefer the FZ 40 in BW and might not see what my eyes see!

Setting exposure, ISO and picture format (incl. 1:1 !!!) can be done more easily without getting deep into the menue, the FZ 28 had only the exposure menue arrows.

Check the FZ 40 or 45 as it is named in some countries - I love it.

BR
Heiner

Yep, the maginot line for sure as still image shooters pass the baton to videographers much as colour took over from black and white. All the events I go to now people are shooting video rather than stills.

Still image shooters will be forced up the food chain to 4/3 and larger sensor sizes. Dpreview will become DVreview maybe with a still image forum thrown in for the old geezers still clinging to the old ways. sob....

--
Kevin Coppalotti
http://maxhr.zenfolio.com/

After study of features, my conclusion is that the older FZ35 is the one for me. The low quality images of the more recent models may be due to the longer zoom range which I do not need. My FZ28, before it died, produced images so sharp that I made up to 20x30 enlargements. The FZ35 has a separate video button, stereo microphone and claimed better image stabilization. Also one can zoom and stay in focus while making a video. There are also manual controls for video. The final decision maker is its much lower price than the FZ40 or FZ100 and the fact that the battery, charger and filters are interchangeable with those for my FZ28. So, I will go for the FZ35 and request a refund on my FZ100. Thanks for your help.

You cannot really compare the FZ100 to the FZ50 or the FZ40 to the FZ30. The 50 is probably best compared to the 30 and the 40 to the 35, in my opinion. And, of these four, probably the 50 and the 35 are the most praised for overall IQ and function. But, perhaps the newer models will gain in popularity, especially the FZ40.
--
It is the 21st Century and I still prefer to read books on paper, not plastic.

Think I'll start my own forum: OldPhotoGeezers.com
Non-Boomers must pay membership fee. Old folks just show your AARP card.
--
It is the 21st Century and I still prefer to read books on paper, not plastic.

look at pictures that LZ470, one of the members here, posts with his FZ100 ? learn to use it... it is a great machine for what it is..... It is not a Ferrari but it is not a little camry either... U know what i mean, search the poster i mentioned and see the work,,, Good luck ! also digby dart and a feew others do good work with the camera so dont despair... a camera is only a tool in peoples jhand, dont blame the camera too fast....
--
Grazie, Thank you, - Sal

Be careful what you post about the FZ100. There are certain members here who become extremely offended at the slightest negative comment about that camera.

Hopefully the successor to the FZ100 will be an improvement, but it is unlikely as long as eye-catching magapixel and zoom take precedence over picture quality.

From what I could tell, all the issues with the jpgs go away if your prepared to shoot raw, however, the yellow blotchiness is stil there in raw but maybe that good be dialled out a bit with the wb.

Seems like good exposure and shooting raw is the answer for the fz100, but that may not be that practical I guess for many.

Have you considered the new G3 with the 14-140 lens, bigger yes, but the jpg engine look amazing and you have the option for the ex-tele option and 20fps, worth a look?

To desertbill

I think like you, I don't have a FZ28, but I have a FZ30, and I am very happy with it because it gives excellent image quality, with very good resolution of the bushes, tree leaves, or hairs, maybe not the super resolution I have seen in pictures of the Sigma SD9 users, but In any case, it is very satisfactory.

I'd like to know your opinion about the super-resolution in the leaves of the trees, on rocks in the slates in the profiles of the distant mountains, in the photos I uploaded to my dp gallery that are directly from the camera, unaltered, and full size, I invite you also to observe that the quality and the resolution is exactly the same, in wide angle and zooming.

In the one of a very old church (Sant Joan d'Isil XII c) look at the fine details in the stones arch over the main door, also the small details and sculpted faces in the small archs under the roof, the richness of details in the leaves, the water, and everywhere.

I wanted to buy a "superzoom" and after looking at many samples of the Nikon p500, SX30is Canon, Fuji SM20, Sony HX100V, and Panny FZ30, I concluded that the image quality is very bad at all of them, despite super technical characteristics that supposedly claim to have.

If I had to rate the image quality from worst to best, my ranking would be as follows:
SX30is - (IQ - 1)
P500 - (IQ - 2)
HS20 - (IQ - 3)
FZ30 - (IQ - 4? ... 5?)

HX100V - (IQ - 4? ... 5?) (In my opinion, the FZ 30 and HX100V are the least bad, but this does not mean they are good)

I mean I'm very disappointed, and I think I will not buy any until the market is hit by a superzoom that offers truly excellent image quality at a reasonable price.

After seeing the quality and resolution that gives the FZ30, I believe Panasonic enginers should start working fine and make a really good superzoom camera, or I'm not going to be the one to buy it, because compared with FZ30, the image quality of the FZ100 is a real rubbish.

I'm sure they can, they are working with Leica one of the finest optics in the world,

It's a shame they're just following the ridiculous tendency of increasing megapixels and zoom magnification and forgetting their highest and most appreciated value: the image quality.
--
Salvador Frigola
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfrigola2/
http://community.webshots.com/user/sfrigola2

And it was said "After seeing the quality and resolution that gives the FZ30, I believe Panasonic enginers should start working fine and make a really good superzoom camera, or I'm not going to be the one to buy it, because compared with FZ30, the image quality of the FZ100 is a real rubbish."

Some people on this forum have been very successful in pulling the best out of the FZ100 and have been kind enough to post copious numbers of photographic proof, plus their settings that seemed to work best with this model.

So, anyone who buys this camera and has initial disappointment may want to try some proven settings. That being stated, the camera isn't for everyone nor is it a one camera wonder. So, you may just need two cameras to achive full coverage of your shooting environments.

If anyone thinks that Panasonic is going to do the sane thing (in the mind of the photographer) vs. the profitable thing (in the mind of the sales dept), then best see a professional for delusional thinking.

We (I include myself among the many Panasonic FZ fans) have for several years now advocated for a return to what works best rather than a steady march forward with unreasonable demands placed on a small sensor. However, our requests, critiques, and rants have gone unheeded by the Japan corporation that we long to love. All sheep seem to be jumping off the cliff at the same time, as Sony, Nikon, Canon, and Fuji are in a race to the death with Panasonic to see who can manufacture the absolute worst superzoom with the highest sales records.

I will now go and bang my head against a wall. Thinking too much has lowered my frustration level.

--
It is the 21st Century and I still prefer to read books on paper, not plastic.

No one can argue that something "should" suit your tastes.
It either does or it does not.

Maybe if you didn't mind shooting in RAW format you would have liked the images, but if shooting in RAW is something you don't like to do--who is to say you should do it?

I hope that with your FZ35 you get images that bring many smiles to your face.

As for those who say the subject of FZ100 is "taboo".
I don't think so.

For a while, it was open hunting season for the FZ100--with negative comments being posted, ad nauseum, every time the FZ100 was mentioned, by people who had never even tried the camera.

That is counterproductive, as it discourages meaningful discussion and only serves to polarize people.

Why anyone feels compelled to continually comment on a camera that they don't use and never will is another subject entirely.

Love the FZ100 or hate it, it doesn't matter.

What does matter is that each of us finds at least one camera that makes photography fun and that we don't belittle others for choosing a camera that we don't like.

Your reaction to the FZ100 sounds much like mine to the FZ35 that I bought over a year ago, but unfortunately was not able to try at a store. Not sure if that would have revealed the problem I have with it anyway.

It is OK in good outdoor lighting conditions, but just terrible indoors where I most hoped to use it. I've tried various settings suggested on this forum in the past, but the noise it produces continues to frustrate me. It seems some other owners report the same issues I have while, others say it is just great.

It always wants to jump to the highest ISO setting I allow and anything over ISO200 proves to be unacceptable. Most puzzling is the quality of the noise, unlike anything from my other digital cameras. I expect noise to be grainy, but with related colors -- the noise on the FZ35 has seemingly random colors thrown in, and in random patterns, making it extremely difficult to improve with my usual editing tricks.

I put it aside for a while, then try it again and repeat the cycle of frustration. I'm tempted to put it out on trash day just to break the cycle!

I'd still like to find a small camera (FZ35 size or smaller) with good indoor ISO performance and 15X or greater zoom.

jimcerny said:

the noise on the FZ35 has seemingly random colors thrown in, and in random patterns, making it extremely difficult to improve with my usual editing tricks.

Click to expand...

My method to get rid of random colors (i suppose you mean yellow blotches) in FZ35 low light/high iso pics: Using Topaz Denoise (5 the current best version), keep all the fine tuning sliders in the right of its dialog window at zero, but 'Clean Color' at maximum level, 1.00: it wont affect the image grain (luma noise) but the yellow blotch will disappear or at least dramatically reduced. Repeat the treatment in the worst cases.

jimcerny said:

It is OK in good outdoor lighting conditions, but just terrible indoors where I most hoped to use it. I've tried various settings suggested on this forum in the past, but the noise it produces continues to frustrate me. It seems some other owners report the same issues I have while, others say it is just great.

Click to expand...

My solution (as far as it goes) with the FZ38 is as follows for low light indoors :

• avoid high ISO (200 or 400 maximum)
• avoid maximum zoom (use a PP crop instead)
• set NR to its minimum (-2) in Img Adj
• experiment with using a reduced resolution (e.g. 5 or 8 MP)
• where there's high lighting contrast, use Intelligent Exposure

I still get noise with low light without flash, but it's not as bad as it used to be. And sometimes there is hardly any noise; this was Xmas lights taken at night through a net curtain :





--
Panas0n!c Lum!x FZ-38