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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 6, 2005, 1:05 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

You can't be serious...............................:arrow:
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 3:31 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 828
Default

Quote:
the other question that comes to mind is, why is some obscure camera store in Australia the first one to introduce a "breakthrough" model like this is claimed to be?
Actually, with 14 well-patronised locations, Ted's could hardly be called "obscure" -- at least in Australia.

In fact Ted doesn't exist -- the chain is owned by the CEO of one of Australia's major companies and his offsider, neither named Ted.

Where they got their information I wouldn't know, but they're big enough to have access to things you & I wouldn't be told, so I wouldn't discount the story.

Idle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 3:44 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Treemonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 628
Default

I have the feeling it is just a typo, I dont own the FZ3 but it sounds a lot like it. they also dont stock the FZ3 so they may just be talking about that. I will email them and get back to you guys.

Treemonkey
Treemonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 4:30 AM   #24
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6
Default

@Treemonkey: I agree. It is probably a typo, although it is strange that the camera is announced for 2005. If theyput 5 MP on a CCDwith the size of the FZ3 sensor, the camera will only be usable at ISO40 :lol:

Regards,

jazzy
jazzcrab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 8:36 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
greenbaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 742
Default

I don't believe it. Why would they come up with a 'small' fz20? Why does everything have to be small? Is it bad to have a real camera in your hands or something? :?
If a new fz would be introduced, it would be a continuation of the fz20 :arrow:

GB
greenbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 9:30 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

FZ4 and FZ5 listed here http://www.panasonic-ebiz.com/consum...ategoryid=1084 No release date; no info other than price.
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 9:44 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

greenbaron wrote:
Quote:
I don't believe it. Why would they come up with a 'small' fz20? Why does everything have to be small? Is it bad to have a real camera in your hands or something? :?
If a new fz would be introduced, it would be a continuation of the fz20 :arrow:

GB
I prefer the smaller FZ's. I consider the size of the FZ10,15,20 a drawback. I think these cams were intentionally/artificially made larger to look more "professional" or "SLR-like" or to justify their cost in the minds of the buyer. That said, however, there is such a thing as "too small" (to me). I would never buy one of those credit-card sized models for instance. However, as an example, the Leica rangefinders, like many other cameras, are specifically designed to be compact enough so you can carry it around. A Camera's capabilities are meaningless if lugging them around is a chore, and you decide to leave it on the shelf rather than take it with you for that reason. Form follows function - always, always, always. Manufacturers always err, in varying degrees, when they break this rule to appeal to a preceived "marketing need", and it's a case where the decision makers need to listen to their engineers, not the marketing types.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 10:16 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

trooplewis wrote:
Quote:
Looks to me like Ted just took an FZ3 spec sheet and changed the name and the pixel rating on the intro. He uses the phrase "5 effective megapixels" at the top and in the middle section he says "3.1 mega effective pixels"

The price, at $200-250 more than an FZ3, seems to give more credibility to a real 5 megapixel camera. Or that's a lot of cash to spend on interpolation! What does Ted know?
Yep, Pana's borrowing a page from Fugi's playbook.

Bet the house this is exactly what they're going to do. (Note... I do not know this for certain.) Same sensor, interpolation. Guess what? it's ain't a bad idear for Panasonic to do!

Fugi does this with many (perhaps most? perhaps all?) of their cameras. As a guy who does this all the time with prints with his FZ-1, guess what -> it works!!! Forget all the bad stuff you read about it. It (interpolation) just works. This is why I DO NOT CARE that the FZ-1 has two megapixels. Fugi has been interpolating and playing word games with "effective" megapixels and "X megapixel resolution" (equaling 2X "effective) for years in-camera, and they're considered excellent cameras. Wanna know why? I'll let you in on a little secret. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a shot taken with 3 "effective megapixels" and "3 megapixel resolution"! In fact, there is a disadvantage to adding "effective" megapixels over interpolated megapixels---> NOISE! Interpolation adds pixel density without the noise.

---> Nice day. Think I'll take some pics with my 2 "effective megapixel", with 4 megapixel resolution FZ-1. : )

PS The magic nuber to interpolate to is ~ 300 pixels per inch for prints because your eye can not resolve detail beyond this pixel density on prints. If you have enough "effective megapixels" to interpolate to this density on prints without adding more than 100% interpolated pixels, that's all the "effective" pixels you need, and two megapixels (believe it or not) is plenty.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 12:35 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
jsiladi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 587
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:

I prefer the smaller FZ's. I consider the size of the FZ10,15,20 a drawback. I think these cams were intentionally/artificially made larger to look more "professional" or "SLR-like" or to justify their cost in the minds of the buyer. That said, however, there is such a thing as "too small" (to me). I would never buy one of those credit-card sized models for instance. However, as an example, the Leica rangefinders, like many other cameras, are specifically designed to be compact enough so you can carry it around. A Camera's capabilities are meaningless if lugging them around is a chore, and you decide to leave it on the shelf rather than take it with you for that reason. Form follows function - always, always, always. Manufacturers always err, in varying degrees, when they break this rule to appeal to a preceived "marketing need", and it's a case where the decision makers need to listen to their engineers, not the marketing types.
Perceived or not, I personally am glad the FZ20 is larger in size. I looked at a LOT of cameras before purchasing it and what became a deciding factor was how the camera fit my hand. The smaller ones just didn't do it for me. I looked at the Fuji S7000, the Minolta A2, The Olympus 8080, all about the same size and smaller than the FZ20 and they all had one thing in common in my perceived view. Too much crap in too small of space. I like the fact that there is a place to rest fingers and thumbs on the camera without tripping some function, rubbing the lcd, accidentally turning the camera off. Could improvements be made? Sure but I don't think a drop in size would be one of them. I'll restate what you've already said (in so many words).. If the camera is a chore to use, it'll just sit on a shelf. With ANY of these cameras, that would be a shame.

Jeff
:G
jsiladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 12:37 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

fmoore wrote:
Quote:
FZ4 and FZ5 listed here http://www.panasonic-ebiz.com/consum...ategoryid=1084 No release date; no info other than price.
and no picture, either. the few verifiable references i've been able to find are all typos; the images and specs they show refer to the FX5..
squirl033 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 1:00 AM.