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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 20, 2005, 9:41 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
pschooley1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 207
Default

Am I wrong in saying that the white balance in the original post seems way off?

Nick, how do you hold so rock still? My caffeine intake all but prohibits such a slow handheld shot.
pschooley1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 9:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
jazzmaster221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 538
Default

the one problem i have with my fz is when i shoot purple flowers at times they come out blue ..can someone expound on that thought..or should i start another thread?
jazzmaster221 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 10:29 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

nooner,

I assure you I found out what I needed to know, FOR ME. Others may not find those things so off-putting. But I went into that week having a good idea what I expected and what was reasonable, and read a lot of in-depth reviews, then read the manual extensively, used a majority of the menus, options, settings, etc, as soon as it arrived, and found it was not the set of compromises I wanted to live with for a long time to come.

Since IS long zoomers were at the time hard to come by and no new ones had yet been announced, it was not easy for me to part with it, and a couple times I went out to shoot more test shots to see if I could correct/work around what to me were liabilites. There is much to like about the camera, and I immediately recognized THAT.

It's possible I will find the upcoming IS long zooms inadequate in those or other regards and will then reconsider the rather ponderous Nikon 8800 which has color more to my liking, or the Minolta A2 or A200 and a teleconvertor.

A week of thorough evaluation is sufficient for me to know what is and isn't right for me. Its possible a future Panasonic will address my preferences, but I only HAD a week to change my mind after thorougly researching the camera prior to ordering. And the Imatest data found elsewhere pretty much indicated what I was seeing with my ultimate arbitor - my EYES. I merely shared my experiences as one will find for practically any camera on the market, and you will find that is not a sin ; }
greenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 10:37 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

jazzmaster,

thembi RULES. I love his gentler take on free jazz.

Anway, I was shocked at how well the image stabilizer in mode two would take my 12x shots and give me very sharp clarity outdoors and handheld even on 13 Seatlle strength coffees - I even got a ski resort mountain at 17 miles away near the end of a sunset with clear views of various runs and building details, and in the foreground some stuff thats maybe 100 yards away also looking clear and relatively saturated.

Right now I'm practically fighting with someone on a Sony forum elsewhere who claims that IS is just a gimmick and a buzzword, and needs an incredible amount of light just to be fuzzy. Like one could shoot guerilla style with a tripod as this camera easily allows ; } ...It was certainly an eyeopener to see how effortlessly it worked with a casual shooting style.
greenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 10:42 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

nooner,

Sorry you don't think I'm a brand name advocate of your chosen brand. Neither am I of any other brand. I just call them like I see them. That doesn't mean I didn't have a fondeness of what Panasonic set out to achieve. I just found that FOR ME they didn't succeed entirely.

I wish anyone using the FZ series many thousands of hours of satisfaction. I might post more later ; }

PS, no need to act like an indignant phanboi - the internet already has that in abundance.
greenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 10:55 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

I really don't need any of your childish theatnening PMs either, nooner. Unless a PM is about photography or cameras it won't be replied to. These forums are supposed to be about digital photography and cameras and stuff. Once more and a mod will be getting a copy.

Time to grow up.
greenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 10:59 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Select a Midget!


Lord Littlebrook





NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 11:10 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

Don't forget the Flame Warriors link either - because I have ; }

EDIT: Ah, I see they moved it: now at http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

One for every color ; }
greenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 11:16 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

White Balance was set before shooting.

The camera is not capable of low light captures offast moving indoor sports. The shots I had at 400 iso were horrible. I would not care to post. I only posted with onboard flash at highest setting. Still awful.

The reason I wanted to see if it is capable of low light capture of fast moving sporting events is that not all places allow flash. Simple as that. I did use it since it looked to be acceptable at this tournament. Wrestling is a fast moving sport and it is a good test for any camera to capture the moment. I had everything set properly to what would be a possible good shot. I changed the iso to 50 since I decided to use the flash and it still looks "ugh".

Greenboy you sound like someone that was here before as another name that disappeared rather quickly and actually caused a thread to be locked in this very forum and also went into just about every forum there is.

If you are him just go and post somewhere that is useful. Your claims are nowhere else to be found except for one other who still has their fz20. Enjoy your Sony.



One more flame retardant post by you and I will report this to a moderator...

vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 11:22 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
greenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 101
Default

What is it with the people telling others to get lost around here. I am NOT your mythical other person, I don't currently have a Sony and no special brand name alegiances or aversions, and my only faux paux was perhaps in mentioning something that admittedly in this tread is not on-topic. I apologize for that.

I should have addressed the opening post instead of using another to launch a tangent and mentioned that to my eyes none of these small imager cameras seems especially adept at ISO 400 unless one is shooting nearer the galactic center or has a mythical magic plugin. Look at any number of tests and reviews, and indeed, its only the SLRs that are decent much above 200.

I hope the interloper traitor sniping will abate soon ; }
greenboy 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 6:47 AM.