New Panasonic DMC FZ18 (LUMIX)

Haven't tried the FZ-18, but I have used my Mum's FZ-28 (the FZ-18's replacement). It is an absolutely fantastic camera - far superior to the equivalents from other brands, such as the Nikon P80 (I've tried a fair few compact superzooms).
Infact, my dad felt the need to buy a new camera as the FZ-28 took better pictures than he (an experienced photographer) could get with his Canon 350D DSLR!
Not sure how it would do on sports, but it copes very well with fast flying birds (by which I mean actual birds with flappy wings) which I'd have thought would be similar. Also it records HD video which is nice

 

The Lumix DMC FZ18 is a bit large for a P & S camera, yet it has a very small sensor (1/2.5"). The Lumix LX3 is much smaller and has the typical P & S size and yet it has a much larger sensor. The LX3 also takes much better pictures and has a much faster and better lens (summicron-the king of lens).

 

IMO FZ18 and LX3 can't be compared. I have limited knowledge in Panasonic cameras but they seem to be comparable with Canon's S series and G series. One is compact superzoom camera and the other is toward prosumer camera.

roughly if I'm going on travelling I will take FZ to take advantage of the zoom, but if I know I will be taking indoor or even outdoor and dark I will take LX3.

Also for comparing FZ28 to 350D. I don't think FZ28 can compete with 350D, one is SLR like camera and the other is dSLR. What lenses used for 350D?

 

Cameras like the FZ18 are getting the worst of both worlds and buyers should know about their terrible decision to buy such cameras. This is because they have about the bulk of a DSLR, the heart (sensor) of a baby, and the audacity to have long zooms. The end result is a picture that is among the worst of any P & S camera. Small sensors (FZ18 has a a 1/2.5" sensor, among the smallest in the industry) make lousy long zooms and should never be used on bulky cameras-limited to the very compact P & S type.
It would be better to go DSLR and there are small ones not much larger than the FZ18 (say Four Thirds). For the compact P & S you can choose the standard 1/2.5" sensor type or the top of the range, the LX3 with a 1/1.6" sensor and an f2 lens. The Canon G series are too big to be considered compact P & S.

 

The FZ-18 (or FZ-28) obviously isn't going to compare well to the LX-3 - that's why the LX-3 costs £100+ more

Whilst they aren't going to fit in your shirt pocket, they are certainly nowhere near the size or weight of an SLR. If you are going on a hike with them around your neck, you are going to notice the difference - and that's without the extra lenses you would need to be able to take the same variety of pictures as is possible with a superzoom.

My parents are kind of "amateur naturalists" - they go on long walks / holidays, and want to take pictures of landscapes (wide angle), birds (telephoto), and insects etc (macro) along the way. Are you going to try telling me there's an SLR + lens combination that can do all that and still be as small and light as a compact superzoom?
I think not, and that's pretty much the point of compact superzooms - versatility (that and the price difference Vs an SLR). Obviously they have to compromise on image quality to some extent, but then all cameras compromise on something.
btw: None of the cameras mentioned on this page are "compact P & S".

Have you ever actually tried these cameras, or are you just looking at numbers on a spec sheet?
I've tried a few over the years, starting with the Konica Minolta Z10 (8X zoom, which was considered huge at the time) and Z5. As you'd expect, some are very bad - the Nikon P80 has terrible vignetting for example, and some others suffer from barrel distortion (not surprising for cameras with long zooms) and others the colors are bad.

However, they've come a long way, and some new models, like the FZ-28, are genuinely very good cameras. Maybe next time my parents come to visit I will post some pics...

 

Of course cameras like the DMC FZ18 and FZ28 are larger in size than some of the smaller four thirds cameras, the latter also have sensor sizes that are 5 to 7 times larger than the former. Panasonic and Olympus both produce four thirds cameras, including Panasonic's DMC-G1 and DMC-GH1, which are much smaller but incomparably better than the FZ18 and FZ28.
Unless you are into wildlife photography which limits the photographer's movement, very long zooms are more for show and hardly used. I have immense size long focal lenses that I hardly ever used, after their initial novelty wears off.

 

Saying that a camera costing 3 times as much is better, is stating the obvious.
Also, I don't think the difference is "immeasurable". Infact, I think the difference in quality between uncropped images, printed at A4 size, is not great at all.

I am into wildlife photography, which is why I like compact superzooms. I agree that the average person probably won't need the long zoom, or many of the other features these cameras have either, for that matter - that doesn't make them bad though - merely unsuitable. To the right user, they still represent outstanding value for money.

I mean, sure, if you've got £600 burning a hole in your pocket, go ahead and buy a G1.
If like most people however, you do not, but you'd still like a camera suitable for the kind of photography I talked about before, then right now - the FZ-28 is your best bet. That's all I'm saying.

 

I would avoid taking advice from Taneepak, his facts arent right, and he talks nonsense in other threads, go google and you will see.

About wildlife photography, and photography in general, it is expansive, more expansive than you might think.

Any non-DSLR are really only good for every day photos, it has been designed that way to suit the most consumers. The limitation of a P&S means you will find it very hard to capture "non-standard" photos.

I am not saying you cannot take good pictures with a P&S, you can, but the type of photos you can take and yield satisfactory results will be limited. Usually there are only one situation you will yield good results with a P&S:

- Outdoor with plenty of light and short focal length plus a lot of time

P&S is not fast enough for wildlife photography, it doesnt matter if you can zoom 18x, if you press the shutter there will be a delay long enough to ruin your photo. The FPS is not high enough either, and you will be missing shots. Wildlife photography needs very short shutter-delay and very high fps that a P&S cannot provide.

You also will have a hard time to control the depth of field and shutter speed, also, noise will be problematic even at low ISO.

Just like sport photography, wildlife photography is one of the most expansive type of photography. DSLR gears used for these can easily go beyond 30k GBP for professionals that works for magazines or newspapers. It is not expansive because these companies can afford it, its because to capture high quality and artistic photos of such nature requires gears THAT expansive.

 

I agree that you generally need good lighting - the lenses are physically smaller, so they just can't let as much light in.
I'm not sure why you think it should be hard to control shutter speed / depth of field?
Noise varies a lot between cameras, but yes, it's probably going to be worse than on SLRs.

As far as shutter-lag, and fps go, it again depends a lot on the camera. The Panasonics aren't fantastic in this respect, but others are.

Eg. Casio EX-FH20 (c.£300)
http://www.exilim.co.uk/press/shownews.asp?article=96
Shutter Lag : 0.01 seconds
Burst Rate: 40 fps (7MP)
Optical Zoom: x20

In my opinion, *by far* the most important thing in photography is being in the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment. If you use an SLR, that means carrying around a bulky camera, and an assortment of lenses, everywhere you go - otherwise you're going to miss opportunities. End result is that for most people, an SLR won't take better photographs, because either the camera, or the appropriate lense, is still sitting at home.

 

Thats why I carry all my gear with me

40 FPS is pretty impressive lol I havnt paid much attention to P&S every since I got my DSLR and I didnt know they manage to crank to such an insane FPS

But there are a few things still worth noting:
- JPEG vs RAW , no argument here, RAW is better in many respect and since you probably cannot shoot at 40fps RAW, shooting in JPEG will be less favourable. I cant seem to understand the NEED of 40fps tho 10 fps is more than enough in most situation. Its good never the less, you probably just need to delete lots of photos haha

- About shutter delay, actually I meant the monitor lag. In DSLR you look through a viewfinder and what you see is in real-time. In P&S you look at the tiny LCD screen which has a significant delay, if you try doing some rapid camera movement you will see the blurry trail left behind. This delay affect your judgement of the timing to take the shot. When you see the object in the LCD its already too late, add this to your reaction time and shutter delay and it will be quite tricky to capture fast moving objects.

- Noise is a big problem and in P&S it will tend to be quite obvious beyond ISO 400.

- The camera lens is also of poor quality compared to even the worse DSLR lens. Sharpness of the image will be low, but if you are just shooting for pleasure this should be alright to live with.

- Another thing that I forgot to mention is focusing speed, since wildlife photography is all about capturing the moment, you are constantly making fast decision and focusing can be quite important. DSLR focus quite considerablly faster than P&S.

- Zoom is also important, not how far but how do you zoom, in DSLR you zoom in and out by turning the zoom ring, this is important because firstly the zoom is stepless, secondly this allow very fast zooming, you can take one wide angle shot as a safety, then zoom in real close, increase the shutter speed and take a second shot, this can be done in less half a second. while in P&S you probably will spend much longer, and risk loosing the "right moment"

as to why is it harder to control shutter speed and aperture, i guess you have to go through menu or maybe use a joystick etc? while in DSLR its just a flick of the index finger.

I understand not everyone is prepared to spend 1000 pounds of a DSLR. P&S will do great if you have a low requirement. everyday-shooting, parties and birthdays, holiday and travels, these normally have low requirement, its just a matter of capturing the object with nearly no artistic concern.

Wildlife photographer however has a higher requirement simply due to how difficult it is to capture moving animals without startling them.

Im just saying using less capable camera in shooting tricky photo will be so much more harder and perhaps hoping for good performance is just going to end in a bit of a disappointment.

 

Some superzooms (eg. Panasonic FZ-30) have the manual zoom ring. The zooming is fast and smooth enough on most other cameras anyway (they use a very large number of "steps").
Lenses do usually suffer from various forms of distortion at the extremes of their zoom range, and in some cases chromatic abberation. This is inevitable given their size.



Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that:

* Yes, performance-wise even a high-end compact is not as good as an SLR, BUT the difference is nowhere near as big as most people (esp. "SLR Snobs" and people who haven't bought a camera lately) think - they are capable of A LOT more than "parties and birthdays, holidays and travels".

* SLRs are much bulkier, and may need up to 3 different lenses to match the versatility of a compact. They are also considerably more expensive.


Basically, they're designed for two entirely different groups of people, and you're going to know which is right for you without having to think about it too much.

For me, an SLR would be absolutely useless - I simply wouldn't take it anywhere, because it would be too cumbersome, and in a lot of situations I'd be too worried about damaging it.

 

In a way that is true. Many people carry along their P & S cameras most of the time. This is not true with bigger cameras. The bigger the camera the more specialized it is, and it is used only for a specific assignment.
However, large sizes have better quality. A full-frame 6x6 or 6x9 will be significantly better than a full-frame 35mm dslr. In turn a full frame 35mm dslr will be significantly better than the all those below. Bottom of the pile is the handphone's camera, p & s, etc.
With smaller cameras like p & s its small size allows huge zooms of up to 300mm but it is very low quality 300mm picture, due to its puny sensor. To put it in perspective, the area of a standard P & s sensor is only 1/35 of that from a full frame 35mm camera dslr. Then again a full frame 6x6 camera's sensor is more than 3 times that of the 35mm. Portability is also very important, otherwise you will miss the picture whilst waiting to decide if you want to use a larger camera. The reason why small cameras can get by with huge zooms which large cameras find difficult even with tripods, is its puny size sensor. Very small sensors mean very small optics. A 35mm full frame 300mm f2.8 lens will be immensely heavy and rather long whereas a p & s's 300mm is a diminutive 49mm. You can get by without tripods with these small dimensions.
Each type of camera has its own application. For wildlife photography, there is of course room for the p&s owners if that is the only camera a person has. For some they may lug along their full 35mm full frame gear plus tripod. There may be a future trend to scale down the size of the equipment like using Four Thirds system for the specialist wildlife photographers. This is only a loss of half the sensor size compared with 35mm full frame, but it brings along other very desirable benefits like smaller, lighter, and much faster tele lenses of f2 and f2.8.
P & S cameras are very popular today and they are the top seller now. It is like the ubiquitous handphone. Almost everyone has one. This surely means the pictures taken by P & S are huge in numbers. This and today's digital cameras have, in my opinion, reduced creativity in photography. It is easy to slip into the habit of taking a picture of anything that catches your eye for a moment and hoping that a few shots may be interesting enough to keep and print, the rest deleted. A state of mind can develop in which chance displaces creativity. At that point the camera controls the creativity of the photography, rather than the other way around. Awareness and selectivity are critical characteristics of fine photography, and it is essential that "automation" not be allowed to diminish those personal qualities.

 

not sure about panasonic's older cameras but the firmware on newer cameras doesn't allow non-panasonic batteries to be used.

 

How long ...

does your battery last? Thinking of buying an extra.

I just bought Lumix ZS7. So far, I'm satisfied with its performance. I'm still in the process of fiddling with the modes and the manual function. I'm really enjoying the macro zoom.