[Recovered Thread: 78328]

[roy123]

Baz, thanks for that tip, i didn't know that...i will check out that thread as you suggest...



thx, Ray



EDIT;

Baz, thank you for pointing out that thread to me, i actually did read it yesterday but didn't see that it had a 2nd page...i will be picking up the Linear Polarizer come my next payday.

[brucewasserman]

I pondered and thought and thought before I bought the FZ-30. I borrowed my friend FZ-20 and was not comfortable with it. I read so many fine comments about the FZ-30 that I said what the hell and I bought it.

I do not regret it for a second.

It is great (although I have not played with the files in Photoshop nor have I printed them yet but the interface is intuitive, the controls are convenient and the feel is great.

I would buy it again and again in a heartbeat :-)

[roy123]

thx bruce...i just received my e-mail from B&H telling me my order has SHIPPED, i am jazzed and looking forward to receiving it. Maybe will have it by next weekend, i hope.

[mtngal]

Great news - you'll get it just in time to post photos of beautiful sunny California days, assuming next week's weather is going to be as good as they predict.:|

[kmancpbh]

Not to be a ballbuster as I am seriously considering buying this camera.

However, is the close-up picture of the Pinion Pine typical of the FZ-30's output? Which ISO setting did you use? The reason I ask is that the image seems quite noisy, and I am concerned about this issue and cannot seem to get a straight answer about noise issues with the DMC-FZ30. Thank you.

[roy123]

kmancpbh...not too worry, i'm not too thin skinned...besides, i really believe there is way too much noise being made about noise in regard todigital cameras nowadays...guess people have to find something to critisize, maybe they should stick with film cameras or up the ante and buy a dSLR...i'll have both after i receive this one and a Fuji FinePix 5000 on the side, which i will hand down to a family member...

[KENNETHD]

waynespixels wrote:

Too bad I didn't see this right away. I would swim thru a river infested with man eating crocs, agrue with my wife's sister, sky dive into the camera store...wrestle King Kong, snorkle thru the piranha infested amazon, become a fear factor champion...in short, overcome any and all obstacles in my way to be the first onein line to buy the FZ 30 all over again! This is the oneto hang on to while yer waiting to win the lottery...then you'll be able to buy all the cameras which do one single thing perfectly, and switch between'em. Mean while this one does such a good job at so many things you'll alway be ready to catch a good shottill your lucky numbers are drawn. A N D as if that weren't enuff...you'll have the Panasonic forum members to brag to and show off your soon to be highly acclaimed photo skills. Best regards, good luck with your purchase, H A P P Y New Year to all!

KennethD




I just got mine about a week ago and am very impressed! I just have one complaint. My prior camera was a Kodak 6490 and it took much better macro shots than the FZ30. I will admit I am a "true amature" in this field but with the Kodak I was able to get alot closer without the auto focus not working. Maybe I don't know what I'm doing (wouldn't be the 1st time...lol) but I can't get as close as I would like. Any suggestions from a seasoned veteran as yourself would be greatly appreciated. Do I need to get a macro lens? I have a bunch of + filters I used with the Kodak(52mm) and got a 55>52mm step down to use these but it really doesn't seem to make much difference......Kinda ramblin on here, after all it is a new year!!! HAPPY NEW YEAR. So anyways.....Help!

Wayne

I am just trying get around to the macro potential of the 30. I have had some success but I must admit to not being able to produce anything postworthy yet. I am envious of quite a few members posts, but my take on the matter is that I will likely purchase an add on lense for the type of shots I want. I've asked in the forum myself, for opinions, and when I get more time, I'll revisit the topic and figure out what lense I need for the results I'm after...lots of good resources here for sure. Best regards,

KennethD

[rduve]

Wayne, one odd thing about the FZ's is the big gap between the relatively close macro distance at wide angle (down to about 2", granted, not very close for macro mode nowadays, but acceptable) and the sudden leap back you have to take if you go to 3x zoom or beyond. Suddenly it won't focus unless you step back 6' or more. This is discussed here: http://www.tangotools.com/panasonic/index.html.

While this article talks about the FZ10, the "dead zone" problem has not been solved in either the FZ20 or FZ30.I personally always carry the Nikon 4T macro lens with me, just in case. I am quoting the above referenced article here:

Focal Range
One thing I noticed right away with the FZ10 was the difficulty zooming in and focusing on small objects a few feet away. I didn't have this problem with the C-720. Turns out that at full optical zoom, the FZ10 will only focus down to about 6 ft (2m), whereas the C-720 is good to about 3 ft (1m). This makes it impossible, for example, to fill the FZ10 frame with a 2" (5 cm) diameter flower from 3 ft (1m) away. I run into this problem frequently, so I took the time to measure the smallest square object that can fill the frame of each camera, for various subject distances. The results were surprising, as you can see in the graph below.



With a subject distance of 6 ft (2m) or more, the FZ10 can fill the frame with smaller objects than the C-720, because you can take advantage of its better zoom range (right half of graph). Closer in it does quite poorly, because you're forced to use less zoom in order to shorten the focal length down to the subject distance. At a distance of 3 ft (1m), the C-720 will fill the frame with a 1 sq in (6 cm[suP]2[/suP]) object, but the FZ10 can't fill the frame with anything less than 30 sq in (185 cm[suP]2[/suP]). That's a big difference, and my only serious complaint about the FZ10. It effectively has a "dead zone" that prevents you taking decent photos of small objects between 1 and 6 feet (0.3m and 2m) away .

Using macro mode is not always a solution, because it may not be physically possible to get up close and personal with your subject. Sometimes backing up to 6 ft (2m) away isn't possible either. Your camera shouldn't needlessly force you to climb a barbed-wire fence or jump into a swamp. In these situations, your only solution is to crank down the zoom and use your computer to crop out most of your image. And you know what that does to image quality.

[kmancpbh]

roy123 wrote:

kmancpbh...not too worry, i'm not too thin skinned...besides, i really believe there is way too much noise being made about noise in regard todigital cameras nowadays...guess people have to find something to critisize, maybe they should stick with film cameras or up the ante and buy a dSLR...i'll have both after i receive this one and a Fuji FinePix 5000 on the side, which i will hand down to a family member...

Noiseis all in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, I do not have the money to buy a dSLR like the D50 or RebelXT as I cannot afford the lenses, memory card and all of the other things I need to take my first step into the digital pool. I have seen some DMC-FZ30 shots that look remarkably crisp and clean, and others that have noticeable noise that bothers me personally....even in smaller prints.

The DMC FZ20 and 30 are two of the three or four cameras I am seriously considering to purchase. I guess I need to just go to a photo shop and see if I can take the same shot with various cameras and then print an 8x10 for myself to compare. I plan on purchasing a camera in the next 5-6 days depending on the results.

Happy shooting!

[mtngal]

The picture was at ISO80, shutter speed 1/60, aperture 2.8. It didn't seem like there was any real way around the noise issue if you were going to get a camera like this - nothing else is really better. I think I shot this photo with the jpg fine mode, not as a raw image. I also don't think that there is any better solution unless you go to either a dSLR or maybe Sony's new R1 (and all that extra money). It didn't seem like the Fuji was any better, and I prefer to have less processing.

One of the reasons I stated in this thread that I was in the "maybe" category is that I have had problems getting photos I like straight out of the camera (which this one is). I've been wondering whether the problem is me (very likely) or the camera and haven't come to any conclusion.