Panasonic Lumix FZ15 ve FZ20

[iris]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

I know........

The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
flash shoe.

Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?

Iris

 

[oink]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

My wife has a FZ15 for animal and nature photography. It's a wonderful
camera, and knocks my Nikon 4500 for six. Progress I guess,
DonB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 03:47:25 +0100, "Iris" <Iris87@aolnospam.com> wrote:

>I know........
>
>The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
>that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
>flash shoe.
>
>Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
>the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
>noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
>sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?
>
>Iris
I have the FZ15. I like it a lot. The only feature on the FZ20
I might have wished for would be the 'remote' shutter release.
There is a 2 and 10 second timer, plus the stabilsation feature
on the FZ 15 if you have shaky hands.

 

[Pete]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 03:47:25 +0100, Iris wrote:

> I know........
>
> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
> that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
> flash shoe.
>
> Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
> the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
> noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
> sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?
>
> Iris

There's a review of these cameras in the current issue of PC Magazine, and
they generally prefer the FZ-15.

You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at

http/www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic

HTH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:15d2dv18ufo32.vkk2eub1sh05.dlg@40tude.net:

> There's a review of these cameras in the current issue of PC
> Magazine, and they generally prefer the FZ-15.

I'd be interested in reading that review. Is it on the web...or only in
print?

--

Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Iris wrote:
> I know........
>
> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care
> about that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an
> external flash shoe.
>
> Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369
> while the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality
> and noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same
> sized sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?

Iris,

In principle you are correct - there should be slightly lower noise on the
4MP sensor because the individual pixels are larger, and the efficiency of
light capture should be better because the readout electronics may take up
less space.

The movie clips don't have audio on the FZ15.

There are also some new lightweight models - the FZ4 and FZ5 - with a
similar feature difference, sacrificing a little in the aperture at
maximum zoom (f/3.3 cf. f./2.8). Whether these newer models have a newer
sensor and therefore better image quality I don't know.

Cheers,
David

 

[Pete]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 05:04:17 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> I'd be interested in reading that review. Is it on the web...or only in
> print?

I looked quickly at their website, and don't see it online, but you can
check for yourself at www.pcmag.com. PC Mag is available at just about any
newsstand or public library (in the US).

HTH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

oink@woosh.co.nz wrote:
> My wife has a FZ15 for animal and nature photography. It's a wonderful
> camera, and knocks my Nikon 4500 for six. Progress I guess,
> DonB

... although I bet you still find the swivel of the 4500 useful, compared
to the fixed LCD on the FZ15..?

David

 

[Pete]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On 7 Mar 2005 05:04:17 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> I'd be interested in reading that review. Is it on the web...or only in
> print?

Bill: Try this...

Go to www.pcmag.com
Click on the DIGITAL CAMERAS icon right under the SEARCH box
Click on the Superzoom link under DIGITAL CAMERA FINDER

You'll find at least a summary of the mag's latest Panasonic reviews there

Pete

 

[DaveC]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
> that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
> flash shoe.

You might want to take a look at the FZ3. 3 megapickles and no flash
shoe, and smaller. Same great 12x lens. Many of the other features that the
big brothers have, at around 300 fish.
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:1d6qpbvmv75sz.417qxlfiww5.dlg@40tude.net:

> On 7 Mar 2005 05:04:17 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
>> I'd be interested in reading that review. Is it on the web...or
>> only in print?
>
> Bill: Try this...
>
> Go to www.pcmag.com
> Click on the DIGITAL CAMERAS icon right under the SEARCH box
> Click on the Superzoom link under DIGITAL CAMERA FINDER
>
> You'll find at least a summary of the mag's latest Panasonic
> reviews there
>
> Pete

Thanks, Pete.

--

Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> You might want to take a look at the FZ3. 3 megapickles and no flash
> shoe, and smaller. Same great 12x lens. Many of the other features that the
> big brothers have, at around 300 fish.

The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but is not
f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most need speed.

ittsy <leicarose@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Both of them are OK cameras for the money. They do not come close to SLR
> or rangefinder quality, partially due to the extremely small sensor and
> partially due to the ridiculously large zoom range... but most consumers
> are pleased with the images.

Although it seems like the Leica-badged lens is better than anything
available at reasonable cost for DSLR. The Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3
goes wider but not nearly as long and has questionable optical quality
especially at the long end. Canon makes a good 28-300/3.5-5.6 IS
but it is very heavy and expensive.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 19:53:47 -0800, Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 7 Mar 2005 03:47:25 +0100, Iris wrote:
>
>> I know........
>>
>> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
>> that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
>> flash shoe.
>>
>> Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
>> the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
>> noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
>> sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?
>>
>> Iris
>
>There's a review of these cameras in the current issue of PC Magazine, and
>they generally prefer the FZ-15.
>
>You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at
>
>http/www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic
>
>HTH


Also try this

http/www.dcresources.com


keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote in news:422df6c2@news.meer.net:

> DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> You might want to take a look at the FZ3. 3 megapickles and no
>> flash shoe, and smaller. Same great 12x lens. Many of the other
>> features that the big brothers have, at around 300 fish.
>
> The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but
> is not f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most
> need speed.

The EXIF for a pic I took at max zoom on my FZ3 says F2.8.

Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Benson wrote:
> Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote in news:422df6c2@news.meer.net:
>
>> DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You might want to take a look at the FZ3. 3 megapickles and no
>>> flash shoe, and smaller. Same great 12x lens. Many of the other
>>> features that the big brothers have, at around 300 fish.
>>
>> The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but
>> is not f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most
>> need speed.
>
> The EXIF for a pic I took at max zoom on my FZ3 says F2.8.
>
> Michael

That's what it says on the front of the lens as well....

http/www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/

David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:
>
> The FZ3 lens has similar focal range (35-420mm versus 36-432mm) but is not
> f/2.8 all the way: it is f/4.6 at the long end where you most need speed.

Sorry, I was wrong -- the FZ3 lens is a 35-420/2.8 constant aperture.

For me the main problem with Lumix cameras is the electronic viewfinder.

 

[Swifty]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 7-Mar-2005, leicarose@yahoo.com (ittsy) wrote:

>
> Both of them are OK cameras for the money. They do not come close to SLR
> or rangefinder quality, partially due to the extremely small sensor and
> partially due to the ridiculously large zoom range. . but most consumers
> are pleased with the images.


That's partly true but I think that in good light they come very , very
close to a DLSR.
PC Mag makes the telling point that they are ideal travel cameras offering a
vast range of image making opportunities.
That ridiculous zoom throws more effective images into my viewfinder than
any other camera I've owned.
To match that with a DLSR requires a bigger walllet , a heavy kit bag , more
lenses and a supply of CCD Cleaner.

In poor light , it's no match for a DSLR as I found out recently while
shooting a wedding in a dimly lit Texan Church!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:05:49 GMT, "Swifty"
<swifty@notarealaddress.net> wrote:

>That ridiculous zoom throws more effective images into my viewfinder than
>any other camera I've owned.

Swifty,

I was about to write something similar. I have a Panasonic Lumix
DMC-FZ1-2, and its Leica lens is just wonderful for the kind of
photography I do (see for example
http/www.michna.com/kenya2004/).

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Somebody posted:
>>
>> You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at
>>
>> http/www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic

This is a very interesting review! The Olympus C-720 comparison samples
are awful. And nowhere else have I read about the FZ10's "dead zone"
in the 1 to 6 foot range.

Olympus has a novel approach for solving the purple fringing problem:
reduce resolution enough so that nobody can see it!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 19:53:47 -0800, Pete <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 7 Mar 2005 03:47:25 +0100, Iris wrote:
>
>> I know........
>>
>> The FZ20 has 5 megapickles and the FZ15 has only 4. I don't care about
>> that. I almost never make large prints and I don't need an external
>> flash shoe.
>>
>> Howz the image quality compare? The FZ15 is now selling for $369 while
>> the FZ20 is at $500. Is there a chance that the image quality and
>> noise levels might be BETTER on the FZ15 because it has the same sized
>> sensor as the FZ20 but lower resolution?
>>
>> Iris
>
>There's a review of these cameras in the current issue of PC Magazine, and
>they generally prefer the FZ-15.
>
>You can also find a review of the FZ10-15-20 series at
>
>http/www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic
>
>HTH


Also try this

http/www.dcresources.com


keith


Opppppppppps that should be http/www.dcresource.com not dcresources

Sorry