I'm hooked on the FZ300

[travelfoodphoto]

I've had my FZ300 for about 3 years now and use it for all of my photography. Portraits, landscapes, flowers, hummingbirds, street photography. Some may say it doesn't have the best IQ or DR, but to my eyes, for viewing on my 27" IMac, and posting here on several boards, I think its far better than adequate.

I had 2 Nikon Z cameras over the past 2 years, both with the well reviewed 24-75mm and 75-375mm (FF equiv.) lenses. After many photographs, often intentionally similar to shots I've taken with my FZ300, I sold one, and just returned the second one. The images were minimally better or about the same in most situations (no, I don't pixel peep), and going out to shoot and either having to take 2 lenses and change them when the image required a longer or shorter lens is a pain in the a**, in my opinion, or just taking the one lens on the camera and then being limited to what you can photograph well is just plain frustrating.

I'm sure I'll continue to look at cameras to purchase, but the FZ300 really is a wonderful tool for photography!

Best,

Den

Here are a few examples:

 

[WiltshireMoonraker59]

Yes I feel the same about the FZ200/330 cameras, excellent image quality from such a small sensor and more than enough quality for most needs.

 

[K-Dub]

You take some great pics with the FZ300! It is certainly a capable camera.

I do love my FZ2500 and my old FZ200. My son has the FZ300 and absolutely loves it. I'm trying not to think about what I will replace the 2500 with once it dies. There doesn't seem to be anything newer that compares. Sometimes I think about getting a FZ300 as a spare camera.

 

[Dak on cam]

I've had my FZ300 for about 3 years now and use it for all of my photography. Portraits, landscapes, flowers, hummingbirds, street photography. Some may say it doesn't have the best IQ or DR, but to my eyes, for viewing on my 27" IMac, and posting here on several boards, I think its far better than adequate.

I had 2 Nikon Z cameras over the past 2 years, both with the well reviewed 24-75mm and 75-375mm (FF equiv.) lenses. After many photographs, often intentionally similar to shots I've taken with my FZ300, I sold one, and just returned the second one. The images were minimally better or about the same in most situations (no, I don't pixel peep), and going out to shoot and either having to take 2 lenses and change them when the image required a longer or shorter lens is a pain in the a**,

I do pixel-peep. That makes a difference. The dynamic range of an FZ200 (which is what I use) is comparatively narrow, so you almost always are navigating the noise/blowout/shadow/sharpness tradeoffs. With regard to the pixel-peeping it actually helps that those cameras stuck with 12MP given the 1/2.3" sensor size.

It turns out that to a good degree due to my pixel-peeping habits, I stopped using the FZ200 for most of my photography in lieu of a Sony DSC-R1. Which has only 10MP, a much larger sensor (APS-C class), a very good 24-120mm 1:2.8–4.8 equivalent lens (that goes down to 1:16). Of course at the long end it is much more limited than the FZ200. If my main goal were birding, I'd likely rather take the FZ200.

These days I mostly use a Nikon D750. Being able to go (quite a bit) beyond both 24mm and 120mm is liberating. And I can still pixel peep.

So the different viewing/processing habits have led us in opposite directions. I cannot afford investing in the Nikon Z line (way too expensive for me); but I can make Nikon F work for me. I do miss a few things about the DSC-R1 though: silent photography, 1/2000s flash sync, an LCD that can be used like a "prism viewfinder" by looking down "into" the camera. And the DSC-R1 is good with colors. You can get highly saturated colors right next to subtle pastels, and everything is accurate. With more modern cameras it is more of an either/or proposition.

I don't really miss the FZ200, and I may still use it for video.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Hi Dak,

Appreciate your views. The full frame Z cameras are indeed expensive, but here in the US (can't speak to anywhere else in the world), the Z cropped sensor cameras when purchased refurbished from Nikon directly are so cheap its ridiculous. Every month NikonUSA has a refurbished sale, usually from about the 21st to 27th of each month. Refurbished prices are quite good normally, but during the monthly sale, wow. And so many people I know and far more on the Nikon Z board all have found the cameras and lenses to be as good as new, and do come with a full Nikon 90 day warranty. The Z30 I bought last month had a shutter count of 7!

I bought the Z30 one month ago with the 24-75 (FF equiv) lens (very well reviewed) for $400, crazy cheap. I sold it last week for $400 and was all set to buy this month's incredible deal of the Z50 with the 24-75 and 75-375 (also very well reviewed) lenses for $600. i decided not to at the last moment as I had the exact same kit 2 years ago and just really dislike changing lenses when I don't have to do that with my FZ300. I was going to get it any way as the $600 price would have allowed me to sell it at any time for $600 or even more if i sold the pieces individually.

I don't see myself as a birder, but do shoot hummingbirds that are always in our oak tree filled backyard with a couple of feeders that are about 10 feet from our dining room window and even closer from our back deck. With the FZ300 @ 600mm and 2.8 or 3.2 apertures I get quite good out.of focus backgrounds and don't have to crop at all. Same goes for flowers.

I previously shot with an RX100i for several years and 6 long trips to Europe, and it was a perfect camera for that type of photography. But alas, it finally died and I couldn't see spending $1,700 for the Sony RX100vii.

I know the FZ300 has significant limitations, but I find it is so versatile for me, that the versatility outweighs its small sensor and noisy images (when compared to larger sensor cameras).

Far more than you likely wanted to know!

My best,

Den

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Thanks for the kind words, and I think you should seriously consider picking up an FZ300, as its a lot of camera for its current price, assuming you can find one. I bought mine for $400 new, but I think they now are about $600.

Best,

Den

 

[Dak on cam]

I know the FZ300 has significant limitations, but I find it is so versatile for me, that the versatility outweighs its small sensor and noisy images (when compared to larger sensor cameras).

Oh, no question about its versatility! I just seem to have different weights. I do enjoy what large apertures can do on large sensors for large subjects (compared to insects and flowers) without needing to walk 100 feet. But "enjoy" does not mean it for me to be an absolute deal maker/breaker. Color and noise and detail (at the chosen resolution), however, are important to me. As I said: keeping the resolution of the FZ200/FZ300 down to 12MP is probably one of the things that kept me with it for quite a while. Higher resolution with worse per-pixel quality just does not make me happy.

Far more than you likely wanted to know!

Oh, no beef with reading stuff that took quite longer to write! And I totally follow you. I just end up making different choices.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

And I always enjoy your posted images. Creative, and not run of the mill, so to speak.

Den

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I've had my FZ300 for about 3 years now and use it for all of my photography. Portraits, landscapes, flowers, hummingbirds, street photography. Some may say it doesn't have the best IQ or DR, but to my eyes, for viewing on my 27" IMac, and posting here on several boards, I think its far better than adequate.

I had 2 Nikon Z cameras over the past 2 years, both with the well reviewed 24-75mm and 75-375mm (FF equiv.) lenses. After many photographs, often intentionally similar to shots I've taken with my FZ300, I sold one, and just returned the second one. The images were minimally better or about the same in most situations (no, I don't pixel peep), and going out to shoot and either having to take 2 lenses and change them when the image required a longer or shorter lens is a pain in the a**,

I do pixel-peep. That makes a difference. The dynamic range of an FZ200 (which is what I use) is comparatively narrow, so you almost always are navigating the noise/blowout/shadow/sharpness tradeoffs. With regard to the pixel-peeping it actually helps that those cameras stuck with 12MP given the 1/2.3" sensor size.

It turns out that to a good degree due to my pixel-peeping habits, I stopped using the FZ200 for most of my photography in lieu of a Sony DSC-R1. Which has only 10MP, a much larger sensor (APS-C class), a very good 24-120mm 1:2.8–4.8 equivalent lens (that goes down to 1:16). Of course at the long end it is much more limited than the FZ200. If my main goal were birding, I'd likely rather take the FZ200.

These days I mostly use a Nikon D750. Being able to go (quite a bit) beyond both 24mm and 120mm is liberating. And I can still pixel peep.

So the different viewing/processing habits have led us in opposite directions. I cannot afford investing in the Nikon Z line (way too expensive for me); but I can make Nikon F work for me. I do miss a few things about the DSC-R1 though: silent photography, 1/2000s flash sync, an LCD that can be used like a "prism viewfinder" by looking down "into" the camera. And the DSC-R1 is good with colors. You can get highly saturated colors right next to subtle pastels, and everything is accurate. With more modern cameras it is more of an either/or proposition.

I don't really miss the FZ200, and I may still use it for video.

I wonder about those older cameras and older sensors, why were they so much better with colors? Does the DSC-R1 have the old CCD sensor?

Incidentally I like my EM10Mk2 with 75-600 for a lot of photography, Olympus color is absolutely spectacular. I am a little challenged on the wide end though, so I also have the E-PL6 with 40-150 lens attached to it. I find I don't do any photography at less than 80mm EFL so that's a good combo. The latter camera does not have the fully electronic shutter though so I don't use it as much.

I really like the f/2.8 aspect of the FZ300 but 12 MP is a little limiting, there are some good 16 MP sensors in that format and I wish Panasonic had used one of them in a FZ300 successor. That would be the one update I'd make to that camera.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Hi Dak,

Appreciate your views. The full frame Z cameras are indeed expensive, but here in the US (can't speak to anywhere else in the world), the Z cropped sensor cameras when purchased refurbished from Nikon directly are so cheap its ridiculous. Every month NikonUSA has a refurbished sale, usually from about the 21st to 27th of each month. Refurbished prices are quite good normally, but during the monthly sale, wow. And so many people I know and far more on the Nikon Z board all have found the cameras and lenses to be as good as new, and do come with a full Nikon 90 day warranty. The Z30 I bought last month had a shutter count of 7!

I bought the Z30 one month ago with the 24-75 (FF equiv) lens (very well reviewed) for $400, crazy cheap. I sold it last week for $400 and was all set to buy this month's incredible deal of the Z50 with the 24-75 and 75-375 (also very well reviewed) lenses for $600. i decided not to at the last moment as I had the exact same kit 2 years ago and just really dislike changing lenses when I don't have to do that with my FZ300. I was going to get it any way as the $600 price would have allowed me to sell it at any time for $600 or even more if i sold the pieces individually.

I don't see myself as a birder, but do shoot hummingbirds that are always in our oak tree filled backyard with a couple of feeders that are about 10 feet from our dining room window and even closer from our back deck. With the FZ300 @ 600mm and 2.8 or 3.2 apertures I get quite good out.of focus backgrounds and don't have to crop at all. Same goes for flowers.

I previously shot with an RX100i for several years and 6 long trips to Europe, and it was a perfect camera for that type of photography. But alas, it finally died and I couldn't see spending $1,700 for the Sony RX100vii.

I know the FZ300 has significant limitations, but I find it is so versatile for me, that the versatility outweighs its small sensor and noisy images (when compared to larger sensor cameras).

Far more than you likely wanted to know!

My best,

Den

Hi, I really like your hummingbird shots, what shutter speed do you use at f/2.8 to freeze their wings? I read that 1/4000 second needs to be used but is that really necessary? I've never used anything faster than 1/2000 second. And can you use the electronic shutter for it?

 

[Dak on cam]

I've had my FZ300 for about 3 years now and use it for all of my photography. Portraits, landscapes, flowers, hummingbirds, street photography. Some may say it doesn't have the best IQ or DR, but to my eyes, for viewing on my 27" IMac, and posting here on several boards, I think its far better than adequate.

I had 2 Nikon Z cameras over the past 2 years, both with the well reviewed 24-75mm and 75-375mm (FF equiv.) lenses. After many photographs, often intentionally similar to shots I've taken with my FZ300, I sold one, and just returned the second one. The images were minimally better or about the same in most situations (no, I don't pixel peep), and going out to shoot and either having to take 2 lenses and change them when the image required a longer or shorter lens is a pain in the a**,

I do pixel-peep. That makes a difference. The dynamic range of an FZ200 (which is what I use) is comparatively narrow, so you almost always are navigating the noise/blowout/shadow/sharpness tradeoffs. With regard to the pixel-peeping it actually helps that those cameras stuck with 12MP given the 1/2.3" sensor size.

It turns out that to a good degree due to my pixel-peeping habits, I stopped using the FZ200 for most of my photography in lieu of a Sony DSC-R1. Which has only 10MP, a much larger sensor (APS-C class), a very good 24-120mm 1:2.8–4.8 equivalent lens (that goes down to 1:16). Of course at the long end it is much more limited than the FZ200. If my main goal were birding, I'd likely rather take the FZ200.

These days I mostly use a Nikon D750. Being able to go (quite a bit) beyond both 24mm and 120mm is liberating. And I can still pixel peep.

So the different viewing/processing habits have led us in opposite directions. I cannot afford investing in the Nikon Z line (way too expensive for me); but I can make Nikon F work for me. I do miss a few things about the DSC-R1 though: silent photography, 1/2000s flash sync, an LCD that can be used like a "prism viewfinder" by looking down "into" the camera. And the DSC-R1 is good with colors. You can get highly saturated colors right next to subtle pastels, and everything is accurate. With more modern cameras it is more of an either/or proposition.

I don't really miss the FZ200, and I may still use it for video.

I wonder about those older cameras and older sensors, why were they so much better with colors? Does the DSC-R1 have the old CCD sensor?

No, the DSC-R1 is one of the first compacts with a CMOS sensor, and not a BSI one (which would improve photon yield). CMOS is quite cheaper to produce than CCD and has a few advantages. Light yield is not one of them. So to sell people on CMOS, manufacturers had to pull the blinds over consumer's eyes regarding its low-light performance, and the road to there was to use less discriminative color masks that just admit more light altogether.

The DSC-R1 was different in that Sony masked the sensitity loss over its sort-of predecessor DSC-F828 by changing from 2/3" sensor type to almost-APS-C, more than 5 times the sensor area, more than 4 times the area per pixel. It still gets noisy at ISO400.

Low-light performance remained a selling point, so rather than dial back the sacrifice in color rendition done during the general CCD-to-CMOS transition, manufacturers squeezed out some more over the years: the advances in low-light performance are only partially semiconductor improvements and things like BSI and microlensing.

I really like the f/2.8 aspect of the FZ300 but 12 MP is a little limiting, there are some good 16 MP sensors in that format and I wish Panasonic had used one of them in a FZ300 successor. That would be the one update I'd make to that camera.

They tried it with the FZ100 with 14MP and were inundated in bad press ("good camera, too many pixels"). The FZ150 was down to 12MP. The FZ60, as a more affordable non-constant aperture companion to the FZ200 was up to 14MP again, and the FZ80 added even higher resolution.

Given how the market responded, I think it was the smarter choice to stick with 12MP for the FZ300. It helps establishing its unique niche in the 1/2.3" sensor superzoom market as being the camera that gets the most light on its pixels even at the long end.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Hi, I really like your hummingbird shots, what shutter speed do you use at f/2.8 to freeze their wings? I read that 1/4000 second needs to be used but is that really necessary? I've never used anything faster than 1/2000 second. And can you use the electronic shutter for it?

Morning,

Thank you. The FZ300 shoots at speeds up to 1/4000 of a second (mechanical shutter) which will freeze hummingbirds' wings. I normally shoot the hummingbirds between 1/125 up to 1/2000 of a second, as I like the variety of wing blur that shooting at different shutter speeds presents. I see no reason why you couldn't use the electronic shutter which, according to Panasonic, goes up to 1/16000 of a second on the FZ300. Of course, faster shutter speed means less light, thus higher ISO, and the small sensor doesn't do very well at ISOs above 1600, in my experience.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Den




Example at 1/2000 sec.

 

[Rodolfo]

Great shots, thanks for sharing: these explain in part why today a used one is selling at amazondotcom for 50% more than many of us paid for ours new, there, several years ago. I still love mine too. Of course, most or many old cameras today are selling at probably more than they're worth -until we see inspirational posts like yours!

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Morning Rodolfo (at least here in California!),

Thank you for the very kind words. When I bought my current FZ300 (I wore one out before this one) I paid $400 at Amazon for it. Now it seems hard to even find a new one at $600!

They are so easy to use, very light to carry, specially when considering their focal range, and the f2.8 aperture all the way up to 600mm is very helpful for OOF backgrounds and keeping the ISO down, necessary with a small sensor.

Keep enjoying yours!

Best,

Den

 

[photoholiko]

I don't blame you; I have the FV200 and feel the same way.

 

[Brian Chichester]

Interesting thread. I had the FZ200 a while back (same sensor and lens, though an earlier processor) and it was about the most disappointing camera I ever bought. It was OK at the shorter FLs but the further I zoomed, the worse it became. And you buy these bridge cameras for the long zoom.

I replaced it with the Fuji HS30EXR, which beats it in all respects despite delivering "only" an 8MP jpeg.

I haven't given up on Lumix - I still have an FZ38, which though it is a smaller, less ambitious camera than the 200 and 300, delivers better IQ within its limits.

 

[Dak on cam]

Interesting thread. I had the FZ200 a while back (same sensor and lens,

I don't think the sensor is the same: it just has the same resolution. But since the sensor combines photosites as well as data acquisition and shoveling circuitry, and the FZ300 has to shovel faster due to its different video and stacking modes, it is quite unlikely that the sensor is the same.

though an earlier processor) and it was about the most disappointing camera I ever bought. It was OK at the shorter FLs but the further I zoomed, the worse it became. And you buy these bridge cameras for the long zoom.

I wonder whether you had a bad exemplar (did you buy it used or new?) or omitted to switch on lens stabilisation (pretty crucial at longer lengths).

My experience with the FZ200 is that it provides pretty constant quality across the focal range. I have a lot of climbing shots where I made the mistake of following the climber with the framing. They all look like they've been shot on the ground. Did you perhaps have a problem of atmospheric disturbance because of heat, possibly combined with humidity? Or things like shooting across a warm motorhood (even if you switch the motor off, the heat sticks around for quite a while)? Or through windows?

I replaced it with the Fuji HS30EXR, which beats it in all respects despite delivering "only" an 8MP jpeg.

It delivers 16MP unless you use a pixel-binning mode. The sensor is 1/2" instead of 1/2.3" which helps.

I had the HS20EXR (similar lens I think, worse video and using 6 AA batteries instead of lithium, in my eyes an advantage) for a while with a front lens scratch. The Ebay listing did show and mention the scratch, but ultimately I decided that it was too conspicuous in backlight situations and returned it. I liked the mechanically linked zoom (even though there was zoom creep when pointing down). Not overly sold on the EXR color mask concept.

I haven't given up on Lumix - I still have an FZ38, which though it is a smaller, less ambitious camera than the 200 and 300, delivers better IQ within its limits.

I don't think that my FZ200 felt limited by optics, rather by its sensor performance, not entirely surprising at its size.

Here is a sample shot from a minute ago (raw processed, so less noise reduction than what the internal processor would use):



The script is in focus. The camera picked ISO200 (this camera should really just be shot at ISO100 if you can help it). Rendition is reasonable except for noise. The camera picked F3.5 (but it isn't really much worse at F2.8), a brighter aperture than the HS30EXR can deliver at the long end. That leads to a fairly narrow depth of field, making material out of the focus plane dissolve rather fast, even though the "end blurriness" is not all that large due to the small sensor. Maybe it is that which threw you off? Small depth of field without great background blur to show for it?

Or even the comparatively frequent blunder of using a cheap UV filter for protection?

--
Dak

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Interesting thread. I had the FZ200 a while back (same sensor and lens,

I don't think the sensor is the same: it just has the same resolution. But since the sensor combines photosites as well as data acquisition and shoveling circuitry, and the FZ300 has to shovel faster due to its different video and stacking modes, it is quite unlikely that the sensor is the same.

though an earlier processor) and it was about the most disappointing camera I ever bought. It was OK at the shorter FLs but the further I zoomed, the worse it became. And you buy these bridge cameras for the long zoom.

I wonder whether you had a bad exemplar (did you buy it used or new?) or omitted to switch on lens stabilisation (pretty crucial at longer lengths).

My experience with the FZ200 is that it provides pretty constant quality across the focal range. I have a lot of climbing shots where I made the mistake of following the climber with the framing. They all look like they've been shot on the ground. Did you perhaps have a problem of atmospheric disturbance because of heat, possibly combined with humidity? Or things like shooting across a warm motorhood (even if you switch the motor off, the heat sticks around for quite a while)? Or through windows?

I replaced it with the Fuji HS30EXR, which beats it in all respects despite delivering "only" an 8MP jpeg.

It delivers 16MP unless you use a pixel-binning mode. The sensor is 1/2" instead of 1/2.3" which helps.

I had the HS20EXR (similar lens I think, worse video and using 6 AA batteries instead of lithium, in my eyes an advantage) for a while with a front lens scratch. The Ebay listing did show and mention the scratch, but ultimately I decided that it was too conspicuous in backlight situations and returned it. I liked the mechanically linked zoom (even though there was zoom creep when pointing down). Not overly sold on the EXR color mask concept.

I haven't given up on Lumix - I still have an FZ38, which though it is a smaller, less ambitious camera than the 200 and 300, delivers better IQ within its limits.

I don't think that my FZ200 felt limited by optics, rather by its sensor performance, not entirely surprising at its size.

Here is a sample shot from a minute ago (raw processed, so less noise reduction than what the internal processor would use):



The script is in focus. The camera picked ISO200 (this camera should really just be shot at ISO100 if you can help it). Rendition is reasonable except for noise. The camera picked F3.5 (but it isn't really much worse at F2.8), a brighter aperture than the HS30EXR can deliver at the long end. That leads to a fairly narrow depth of field, making material out of the focus plane dissolve rather fast, even though the "end blurriness" is not all that large due to the small sensor. Maybe it is that which threw you off? Small depth of field without great background blur to show for it?

Or even the comparatively frequent blunder of using a cheap UV filter for protection?

I have all the above cameras. I used to use the Fuji HS20 I love that it used 4 AA batteries. Replaced it with the HS50 (but I still have both). It has a sharper lens. I did a comparison of HS50 vs S1 a few months ago and the S1 has a slightly sharper lens that resolves a little more detail (1200mm vs 1000mm but it's really more like 1100mm vs 1000mm). IDZ on the S1 is also slightly better than on the HS50. Both at f/5.6 on the tele end which is great. S1 is better for astrophotography since it can do 30 second exposures at ISO 3200. Both cameras control noise well up to ISO 800. However fine detail (like feathers) does get scrubbed somewhat above ISO 250. My parakeet images at ISO 320 are evidence of that. This is the case with both the HS50 and S1, there is something with Fuji noise reduction that kicks into high gear above ISO 250. If shooting objects with not so much fine detail up to ISO 800 is fine with both cameras (including astrophotography.)

Now here is where the surprises come in. I also tested the Fuji S1 vs the Panasonic FZ300 at different zoom lengths and including IDZ vs i-zoom. Fuji S1 handily resolves more detail 1200mm vs 600mm which is no surprise. Its IDZ is also much better than i-zoom on the Panny, which has lots of black pixel artifacts (I assume this would be even worse on the FZ80/D). But where the real surprise came in was when I tested both cameras at 600mm EFL, the S1 also handily beat the FZ300 in resolving finer detail (it was the fine grain of a tree/pole I was testing on so not really images to show off, just something I needed to remain steady at a distance of 95 feet.) I do believe going back through my images that the Fuji S1 also outresolves the Nikon P900/950 even at 2000mm vs 1200mm on the S1, it just has a really sharp and consistent across all focal lengths and from corner to corner lens. It's my main camera right now and also pretty quick in burst mode (not as quick as Panasonic but definitely MUCH faster than Nikon). The only issue is it does not shoot raw in burst mode (not an issue for me since I do not shoot raw and I can use the HS50 to do that anyway) and the other thing is no IDZ in burst mode. Oh well. I can switch back and forth between single shot and burst mode rather quickly. The only real issue for me is no electronic shutter so I'm always worried about shutter wear in burst mode. The Fuji S1 is also well known for shooting GREAT total lunar eclipse photos and just moon photos in general, likely because of its excellent lens.

If I had to rank my cameras in terms of resolvable detail I'd rank them as follows:

Fuji S1>FujiHS50>EM10Mk2 (75-300 lens)>Panasonic FZ300. Also in terms of digital zoom, Olympus's is the best (2x DTC), Fuji is a little behind it (2x IDZ) and Panasonic lags much further behind (2x i-zoom) because of all those black pixel artifacts.

FZ300 is at a disadvantage because of its 12 MP sensor, I think this is why I saw the S1 outresolve it even at 600mm EFL.

On all cameras (except with Panny) digital zoom produces much better image quality than a 1.7x teleconverter. Also, they just take too much time to screw on and it's not practical to use.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[Brian Chichester]

Dak,

Thank you for your considered response to my complaint about the FZ200. First of all, your suggestion that I had a bad copy of the camera is possibly true: I have based all of my impressions on just one camera, which is what most people do. However, I have owned a number of Lumix cameras, and this is the only one where I have had issues, so I am fairly confident in Panasonic quality control.

As regards user errors, I think I used the camera with a reasonable degree of understanding – I used the stabilization feature where necessary, I did not base my criticisms on cases where there was heat haze or other atmospheric phenomena, or shooting through windows, and I don't use UV filters, cheap or otherwise, except in a few defined circumstances where there is an obvious environmental challenge.

What I did find was that at the longer focal lengths there was a loss of fine detail, and the jpeg engine smoothed this out in a strange way, resulting in some bizarre artefacts.

Moving to the HS30, I got better resolution at the long end (which is 720mm equiv.) and better jpeg rendering. (I think the HS30 embodied a couple of improvements over the HS20, which is your reference point.)

You mention the HS series have 16MP available, but the camera is built round the EXR concept, and the pixel binning process optimises the camera output although it nominally halves the potential resolution.

And of course the manual zoom control, which you mention, makes it a more enjoyable camera to use than the motor-driven zoom models.

Of course, in the end it is personal taste that decides which cameras we like and keep, and for me it was the Fuji.

 

[Jon_T]

... I have all the above cameras. ...

Now here is where the surprises come in. I also tested the Fuji S1 vs the Panasonic FZ300 at different zoom lengths and including IDZ vs i-zoom. ...

Lot of talk that's meaningless without posting images, especially given the image quality of "Camera comparison" images you 'HAVE' posted; e.g., HERE and in your DPR Galleries,

Some FZ200 images for you to match with any of your images:




Panasonic 1.7x TZ & iZoom - Full size just cropped excess sky.

;-)