dmc-FZ100K

Started Jul 17, 2010 | Discussions
Setter Dog Veteran Member • Posts: 5,617
Re: dmc-FZ100K

Vandyu wrote:

If I were guessing, intially Panny would price the FZ100 at $449-499 and the FZ40 at $399.
--
Why Not Help Someone to Feel A Little Better Every Day?

I think you are probably right on your pricing estimates. Similar cameras such as the Nikon P100 and Sony HX1 are all selling for around $350. Similar cameras like the Casio and Olympus, which are not as popular, are under $300.

I think any of these cameras max out at street price of about $400.

Jack

Torkil Regular Member • Posts: 209
Interesting to see how P's new CMOS sensor performs

Assuming that FZ100 is using a new CMOS sensor (which HD video and 11fps seem to indicate), it is going to be interesting to see how it performs.

Canon released SX10 (CCD) and SX1 (CMOS) at about the same time and reviews seemed to conclude that SX10 had better IQ than SX1.
In the followup, SX20, Canon has only released a CCD version.

RayUK Senior Member • Posts: 1,036
Re: Evolutionary - NOT revolutionary

CoasterTim wrote:

Hasn't blown me away...I was hoping like many of you for something new...at least an articulating screen, for crying out loud.

Why do some of you think it hasn't got an articulating screen ? The specs. say it has a free angle LCD, which I think is Pany-speak for the same thing.

Ray

CoasterTim
CoasterTim Senior Member • Posts: 1,227
Ray...

RayUK wrote:

CoasterTim wrote:

Hasn't blown me away...I was hoping like many of you for something new...at least an articulating screen, for crying out loud.

Why do some of you think it hasn't got an articulating screen ? The specs. say it has a free angle LCD, which I think is Pany-speak for the same thing.

Ray

I hope you're right. That would be a major plus!
--
Tim Schaeffer
http://picasaweb.google.com/timspirations

 CoasterTim's gear list:CoasterTim's gear list
Olympus Stylus 1s Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V Nikon Coolpix P900 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Olympus TG-5 +22 more
Vandyu Veteran Member • Posts: 8,897
Re: Evolutionary - NOT revolutionary
 Vandyu's gear list:Vandyu's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II +9 more
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 7,094
Re: 15Mp on a 1/2.33? How could it ever perform?

Bas Hamstra wrote:

I am very sceptical!

Same here, but I'll wait for the images. You never know, and Panny might have a surprise.

-- hide signature --

'Hit Refresh if pix do not appear. Flaky ISP at work.'

Gary R. Veteran Member • Posts: 3,196
Re: dmc-FZ100K

Vandyu wrote:

Yeah, who wouldn't pay an extra $25 for a larger viewfinder? I'd even go $50. Depending on my mood, maybe higher. I just think Panny is being penny wise and pound foolish, as granny used to say.

What puzzles me is why they use a low-resolution viewfinder (201k) on a camera that has the hardware to support a 460k display (the LCD). Since the camera already has the power to handle the hi-res, why not use it?

Even if the FZ50's viewfinder is physically larger, it still has fairly 'dated' resolution of about 205k, and I can tell a big difference in using my LX3's 460k LCD aided by the Clearviewer, as compared to the FZ50's viewfinder. The difference in ability to see detail is significant, and since they're building the viewfinder in to the camera, why not make it a good one?

They did this with the GF1's add-on EVF....it has only half the resolution of the LCD, so you get the glare and reflection reduction, but at severely reduced resolution.

I think the FZ100 is somewhat Panasonic's answer to the Oly SP800uz with its huge zoom range, except that Oly didn't put ANY viewfinder on it. It's certainly not a replacement for the FZ50, not in any remote way, though it may be a nice travel camera.

-- hide signature --
 Gary R.'s gear list:Gary R.'s gear list
Olympus C-2100 UZ
Ehrik Veteran Member • Posts: 8,014
backside illuminated

safaridon wrote:

Good catch about CMOS, but where did you read that it was back-illuminated?

For BI to work most efficiently the tighter the pixels are packed the better

I don't think you got that quite right.

When pixels get very small, they start to lose too much quantum efficiency and BSI (that's the usual abbreviation) is supposed to reduce this loss of quantum efficiency. With bigger pixels BSI doesn't do much, but that's because the bigger pixels don't lose much to begin with.

hence why Pany went for increasing to 15 mp.

I think they did it to have less aliasing, possibly more resolution, and - of course - marketing.
--
Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden

Wellington100 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,727
Re: backside illuminated

I read an article in a magazine about back illuminated sensors which said that the reason they were developed is because the internal circuitry and wiring of a sensor sits between the top where the light enters the sensor and the bottom where the actual light sensitive area of the sensor is.

On small 1/2.33 sensors this means that 30% of the light is lost due to it hitting the wiring on its way through the sensor. By simply turning the sensor around, the wiring is avoided and there is a 30% gain.

The reason its not an issue on larger sensors is that the amount of circuitry and wiring does not increase proportionally as the sensor size increases so the effect of the wiring becomes negligible at larger sizes of censor so there is no point turning it around.

 Wellington100's gear list:Wellington100's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Fujifilm X-T1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +15 more
Wellington100 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,727
slight correction

The bigger the individual pixels on the sensor, the less the benefit of flipping the sensor over.

 Wellington100's gear list:Wellington100's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Fujifilm X-T1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +15 more
Ehrik Veteran Member • Posts: 8,014
Re: backside illuminated

Yes, that's basically correct.

But there's also the microlenses to consider, they do a decent job of steering the photons past the circuitry, but when the fill factor goes too low, they get to much work to do. Do you recall if the 30% figure is with or without microlenses and for what Mp count?

2µm pixels, like the LX3 ones, are still considered "big" in this context, it's when they get down to around 1.5µm-ish that they benefit from the help of BSI.

I've seen an estimation that the manufacturing costs go up by about 30% for BSI, so they have to weigh costs and benefits carefully; another reason it's not worth it for bigger sensors.

-- hide signature --

Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden

antoineb Veteran Member • Posts: 6,625
nice but 14mp too much

Not a bad update altogether

nice to finally see a better display after what is it 2 or 3 years with the 230k

14mp is too much for both image quality, and file size

why not 24x zoom, was to be expected given competition in the space and 25mm is nice

 antoineb's gear list:antoineb's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus TG-610 Nikon D7000 +5 more
Wellington100 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,727
Re: backside illuminated

Ehrik wrote:

Yes, that's basically correct.

But there's also the microlenses to consider, they do a decent job of steering the photons past the circuitry, but when the fill factor goes too low, they get to much work to do. Do you recall if the 30% figure is with or without microlenses and for what Mp count?

The article I read did not explain the role of the microlenses. I think that I am correct in saying that the article was referring to current generation 12-14 mp sensors on 1/2.33 sensors.

2µm pixels, like the LX3 ones, are still considered "big" in this context, it's when they get down to around 1.5µm-ish that they benefit from the help of BSI.

Correct, there would be no advantage in flipping a sensor with such large pixels based on what the article explained.

I've seen an estimation that the manufacturing costs go up by about 30% for BSI, so they have to weigh costs and benefits carefully; another reason it's not worth it for bigger sensors.

On the Fuji forum users have a love hate relationship with the new BSI sensor in the HS10. I would imagine that as the characteristics of the sensor are mastered in successive generations of firmware and software, these little sensors will give more and more quality. They are enabling tiny super zooms to be marketed with the potential for extraordinary IQ. I am sure Panasonic would have benchmarked the Fuji HS10 with a view to improving on its IQ.

-- hide signature --

Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden

 Wellington100's gear list:Wellington100's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Fujifilm X-T1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +15 more
safaridon Veteran Member • Posts: 3,321
Re: backside illuminated

Ehrik wrote:

safaridon wrote:

Good catch about CMOS, but where did you read that it was back-illuminated?

-- hide signature --

I have seen no statement whether or not any of these new sensors are BI as the specs don't say, but every news items I have read about Pany's work on new sensors seems to indicate they are incorporating BI where feasible.

Judging the the big increase of allowable ISO levels on the LX5 I conclude that sensor is the only one for now using the no gap construction with low noise at high ISO? Again all the 1/2.33 sensors both ccd for FZ40 and cmos for FZ100 show the same ISO 1600 top level compared to ISO 6400 on the LX5 without using high sensitivity range. Possibly this is because with the higher MP sensors there is more noise to start with so cannot go nearly was high ISO on a 14MP small sensor compared to slightly larger 10MP LX5 one?

For BI to work most efficiently the tighter the pixels are packed the better

I don't think you got that quite right.

When pixels get very small, they start to lose too much quantum efficiency and BSI (that's the usual abbreviation) is supposed to reduce this loss of quantum efficiency. With bigger pixels BSI doesn't do much, but that's because the bigger pixels don't lose much to begin with.

--Thank you for your more correct explaination of how BI works and why better with smaller pixels. I only attemted to make a general statement and since Pany is using almost a 15mp sensor for the FZ100 why likely they are able to do this because possibly of using BI?

hence why Pany went for increasing to 15 mp.

I think they did it to have less aliasing, possibly more resolution, and - of course - marketing.

--While higher mp sensors for compacts seems to be the rule for CCD sensors normally slightly lower MPs seem to be the norm for CMOS sensors at least for the first Sony sensors in 1/1.23 size. I assumed maybe wrong that BI was what was enabling Pany to produce the 14mp CMOS sensor for the FZ100.

Thanks for your explanations

safaridon Veteran Member • Posts: 3,321
Re: Evolutionary - NOT revolutionary

I think someone already noted that "free angle" is the term Pany has used in past for their swivel screen on the G1 etc.

dbelling Regular Member • Posts: 341
Re: dmc-FZ100K

Barry wrote:"The other thing to highlight is the not very good EVF still the same here. Really it's about time they started to make better ones for models such as this a 0.20" one is a bit of a joke really."

I agree. I am very disappointed that they decided to keep their tiny and quite useless .20" EVF. What a shame. I would have probably considered it if Panny had improved the EVF.

safaridon Veteran Member • Posts: 3,321
Re: dmc-FZ100K

Gary R. wrote:

Vandyu wrote:

Yeah, who wouldn't pay an extra $25 for a larger viewfinder? I'd even go $50. Depending on my mood, maybe higher. I just think Panny is being penny wise and pound foolish, as granny used to say.

What puzzles me is why they use a low-resolution viewfinder (201k) on a camera that has the hardware to support a 460k display (the LCD). Since the camera already has the power to handle the hi-res, why not use it?

Even if the FZ50's viewfinder is physically larger, it still has fairly 'dated' resolution of about 205k, and I can tell a big difference in using my LX3's 460k LCD aided by the Clearviewer, as compared to the FZ50's viewfinder. The difference in ability to see detail is significant, and since they're building the viewfinder in to the camera, why not make it a good one?

They did this with the GF1's add-on EVF....it has only half the resolution of the LCD, so you get the glare and reflection reduction, but at severely reduced resolution.

I think the FZ100 is somewhat Panasonic's answer to the Oly SP800uz with its huge zoom range, except that Oly didn't put ANY viewfinder on it. It's certainly not a replacement for the FZ50, not in any remote way, though it may be a nice travel camera.

-- hide signature --

I think that the FZ100 is Panys answer to the very popular Canon HS20 with which it should be compared. The FZ100 is wider 25mm vrs 28mm and longer 600mm vers 580, faster lens with 2,8-5.5 versus 2.8 - 5.9 better and larger swivel screen - 3" 460,000 k versus 2.5" and 201,000 k, much faster operation fps 11 versus 0.7fps, smaller 0.2" EVF 201,000 k vrs 0.44" EVF 201,000k on HS20, and smaller phsical size 4.9"x3.3" vrs 5.1" x 3.6".

I think the evaluation of EVFs by their specs can be vary deceiving. For example when Pany reduced the size of EVF from 0.4 to 0.2" on the FZ series with the same 201,000 k the resolution over smaller unit increased and was sharper on the smaller EVF. So while the 0.44" EVF with same dot resolution while bigger to view is not as sharp. IE the larger the EVF or LCD screen the higher resolution you need to be satisfactory. The primary reason Pany is doing this is to reduce manufacturing cost to be sure and keep size down as much as possible but with good resolution large swivel screen fewer will be using the EVF for photography.

However much you obviously liked your FZ50 it could not begin to go as wide hence less versitile nor with its lens was it nearly as compact. I do however believe that Pany is planning a 24-140mm f2-3.3 camera with the LX5 sensor in the rangefinder body like that being shown for the GL1 which is to be optimized for HD video which requires a fast lens.

safaridon Veteran Member • Posts: 3,321
Re: dmc-FZ100K I meant to compare to SX20 not HS20

I meant to compare FZ100 with SX20 as they are very similar in shape, focal length,and features.

trevmar Senior Member • Posts: 2,469
Re: dmc-FZ100K

safaridon wrote:

I do however believe that Pany is planning a 24-140mm f2-3.3 camera with the LX5 sensor in the rangefinder body like that being shown for the GL1 which is to be optimized for HD video which requires a fast lens.

Gee, I hope so. I will buy a 24p 1920x1080 or even a 1440x1080 HDV in an instant, if it has stereo audio and a decent f-stop range (so I can keep the shutter at 1/24 (or even 1/30))
.

Nick Carrigan Regular Member • Posts: 344
Re: dmc-FZ100K

After gawking at the LX5 specs, I started looking at these other new cameras. The FZ-40 isn't that impressive but the FZ-100 looks solid.

I think $499 is pretty darn reasonable for the posted specifcations. If the IQ is decent then it should be a hot seller. In some ways, the FZ-100 is like a big brother to the LX5.

Can't wait for sample pictures!

 Nick Carrigan's gear list:Nick Carrigan's gear list
Sony RX100 V Sony Alpha a7R II Leica M-P (Typ 240) Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica APO-Summicron-M 75mm f/2 ASPH +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads