Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 9, 2004, 8:40 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22
Default

COOL!!! Steve has his review of the FZ20 up! Good review to.

I noticed on the sample images he noted ISO 50 BUT the FZ20 has a minimum ISO setting of 80.


nhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 9, 2004, 9:34 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Nice Review and Super Pics! But....

He also mentioned that there is an "average amount of chromatic aberration (purple fringing on highlights) in high-contrast areas" but if you compare it to the FZ10 there is virtually none because the new processor removes it. What there is though is more of a slight red fringe (seen in the outdoor boat picture) and what is described and shown here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=10610522

On high-contrast lettering. (like the small lettering on the Ozium can)

That may be caused by the new image processing falsely removing what it "thinks" is CA.

Steve says in his conclusion:"When shooting outdoors, the LCD has very few angles that reflect the sun, and the eyepiece of the EVF is deep enough to keep out ambient light. Indoors in low-ambient lighting, they "gain up" to help aid in framing, which is crucial in these conditions."

The EVF / LCD actuallydo not "gain up".Especially with the flash in a darkened room. This has beenthe subject of a lot of complaining on the forums recently.

I wonder if Steve'stest camerahad new or different firmware in it.

Still, kudos to Steve and the other review sites for their hard work. It is really great to have these detailed reviews available for digital cameras. I wish this kind of detailed information was out there for other things besides digital cameras.

--M--

mmanolio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2004, 10:18 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

I really try to look at it objectively - hard to do since I own one, but I don't see why anyone would even consider a different digital camera other than the Panasonic Lumixes, unless you're looking to buy a DSLR or must have the RAW format. Best optics of them all with their 12 optical zoom with IS - no other manufacturer touches these specs and zoom range yet (curiously), responsive, innovative processing engine, good ergonomics, feature-rich, manual control, priced right, and great image quality. Hell, they're even sexy lookin'. The new line, it seems to me, mainly exists to overcome the "too few megapixels" marketing-induced, "more is always better" missperseption for US "Supersize Me Bebe" consumers. Pana would be the market leader if cameras weren't one of the last bastions of fierce brand loyality in the consumer markets. It's a no-brainer. The lower end of the line even blows away much more expensive cameras. I wouldn't trade an FZ-3 - even an FZ-2, for a Nikon Coolpix 5700 or even the 8700. I was thumbing through some of the deluge of digital photography mags at a local B&N and found it curious how so little ink is spilled on these cameras. Pana's PR dept needs to get with it. It almost seems like they're trying to keep them a secret. You have to go out of your way, almost, and do some homework to even know they exist, and the two (worthless) local chain photog stores in my area don't carry them. So another issue seems to be a weak distrubution channel. Perhaps the Canons and the Nikons have a lock here?

Good reviews, as always, from Steve but seemed a little "cut-and-pastey" between the FZ-3, 20, and previous reviews of the FZ's. And it was a long time comin'!

PS Fine quality TIFFS are 14+ megs? Geez! Wanna use Fine/Tiff on the FZ-20, guess you'll need to run out any buy a 15 gig SD card. That's why I don't miss it and will stick with lossy JPEGs and convert to PSD or TIFF in Photoshop. Don't get why peeps insist on the TIFF format produced in-camera. Though "loss-y" what you lose by opening up a JPEG once and converting it is imperceptable. (Actually, I like the lossless STNG format best...) It's an extra step that only takes a few minutes. The Venus engine on these cams seem to have a mini-photoshot session goin' on before writing the image to the media, I doubt Pana will ever produce a camera that does RAW. No loss (and no pun) imo.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2004, 11:13 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Nick,

Your not gonna believe this... But...

I agree with you on this one...

Great review, great camera, great lense.

PS: This does not mean I want to go shopping with you or anything:-D

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2004, 12:14 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Bobc,

Agree with me more often, and you'll be correct more often. The extent to which you agree with me (on any subject) is the extent that you will be correct, and in instances where you disagree, you will most assuredly be wrong. Long ago, you see, I borrowed a page from the Roman Catholic Pope, and declared myself infallible.

As far as hang'n out/goin' shopping? I don't mean to seem indelicate, but now that I've seen your picture, that ain't happening. And I don't even swing "that way"* -Not that there's anything wrong with that. When did it happen (the accident, that is)? Ohhh - never mind, it's October. Silly me. That's a Halloween mask, right? Good one, pretty gruesome! Where'd you get it?

If it ain't a halloween mask... well. I hang out with a bunch of gentlemen who look good (not like your typical beer-belly'd-n-balding digicam-geek). We like to style and profile, and turnin' the ladies' heads (gotchya), ya know? Sorry, you don't cut it. But that's just the way it is. We have a certain stadard to live up to, and you fall laughabley short of it. Again, I hope this doesn't seem indelicate. So, as Brother Manyard said, shopping is..."RIGHT OUT!!!"

Warm regards,

Nick "Hotbody"
The Italian Heart-throb

*(... well except one instance of drunken group debauchery back in college but let's not go there.)
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2004, 12:52 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Nick,

You should'nt shy away from your true feelings like that. By doing so, you are letting everone who reads this know how you relly feel about me. And sorry... I don't swing that way. I have been married (to a women) for 21 years. As you can tell by my picture, I look good for being 47 with or without the mask.

Although I have not seen your pic is probably because you are afraid to post it, and everyone would know that the only reason you go out with your gentlemen friends is so you might have a very slim chance of even talking to a women.

And as far as that page the Pope gave you... I have that page as well... But... I showed it to God, and he edited out all the human intevention, and made it the simple truth.

So if I agree with you on something it is because you finally expressed the simple truth about something.

And If I dissagree with you it's because you are translating the human intervention parts of the page into the mix. And that usually leads to 1 part truth/9 parts human error.

But... I truely like debating with you on things, and keep it comming.

Warm Regards,

Bob "Old (but still hot) body"

The Half Italian, HalfHeart-Throb

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2004, 1:17 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

I don't mind debating with you either - despite the fact you always lose, and the fact that only about one out of four posts is coherent. Which is why I won't comment on your comments above. (In other words, "Huh?!") But I'll go easy on account of you're old and have been married a long time (...both conditions are the leading cause of insanity in males, so you got the proverbial "double-wammy" The "triple wammy" is old-married-with kids. If that's the case fugetaboutdit, you're toast. Not to mention boring.)

At least you were able to keep it together (after multiple attempts) long enough to make a good purchasing decision with respect to your digicam...

- again, I hope this doesn't appear indelicate to say.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2004, 1:36 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Actually... There is a quadra-wammy (kids that are teenagers) which I have.

But the advantage to this is that I have all the time in the world to do testing, and research on this stuff.

And that is why I am right most of the time...:blah:

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2004, 3:57 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Congratulations! I no longer seem to "get your goat".
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2004, 4:25 PM   #10
Administrator
 
steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,535
Default

The EVF does NOT gain-up on the FZ 3, 15 or 20 - that was in error and has been corrected. Occassionally it does brighten some when going from light to dark conditions but it isn't a true gain up as we have seen from some cameras with an EVF. It is quite useable in low-light but in really dark conditions the EVF or LCD is also quite dark. But then again, my NikonD100'sSLR viewfinder is also dark in these same conditions.

It is a shame because this is where an EVF camera could really be better than a dSLR if they just amplified the signal electronically -- I wouldn't even mind it going grainy and monochrome in these conditions. Seeing anything is better than nothing.
steve is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:29 PM.