«

I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
Thanks for info

On May 21, 12:21 am, anira...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
> Thanks for info

I brushed both FZ30 and FZ7 aside, and got LX1. I was concerned with
the pocketability of the camera in the first intance.

If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7 megapixel
will give overall better results than the 10 megapixel, which will have
considerably more noise in the image, and will produce generally poorer
results hat higher ISO settings. Since a 4" x 6" print only requires 2
megapixels for a good print, the 7 megapixel is more than enough.


--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.

Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
> by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
> differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
> expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
> in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
> My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
> only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
> Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
> better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
> heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
> Thanks for info
>

On May 20, 12:22 pm, "Stan Beck" <stan...@neworleansphotographs.com>
wrote:
> If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7 megapixel
> will give overall better results than the 10 megapixel, which will have
> considerably more noise in the image, and will produce generally poorer
> results hat higher ISO settings. Since a 4" x 6" print only requires 2
> megapixels for a good print, the 7 megapixel is more than enough.
>
> --
> I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
>
> Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
> To reply, remove 101 from address.
> ***
I forgot to mention another difference between the Fz8 and Fz50 -
Fz50's sensor is larger than the Fz8's ( 1/1.8" vs 1/2.5")

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
> by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
> differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
> expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
> in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
> My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
> only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
> Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
> better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
> heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
> Thanks for info


FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
any large Panasonic.

--
Jeff R.
(no kidding - its *horrible*)

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:05:10 +1000, "Jeff R." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
>>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
>> by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
>> differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
>> expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
>> in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
>> My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
>> only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
>> Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
>> better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
>> heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
>> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
>> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
>> Thanks for info
>
>
>FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
>better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
>any large Panasonic.

Which just goes to prove: In talented hands nearly any camera can produce a fine
work of art. A pinhole camera made from a cardboard-box, a bit of foil or tin
snipped from a sardine-can, and some B&W sheet film can produce publishable
works of art -- in the right hands.

In common untalented hands even a good camera with Leica optics is a piece of
crap.

99.999% of the time the fault lies within, they just don't have the courage to
find a mirror and come to that blatant conclusion.

I think newer digital cameras should have a "Twit Detector" mode built in. Every
time an idiot tries to use the camera it would announce: "Hey idiot! You don't
have a clue how to take a decent photo, do you! Before you blame yet another
decent camera for your lack of talent, be a good boy and hand me over to someone
that knows how to do real photography. At least be smart enough to do that
much."

Then it would shut itself down and not be able to be turned on again until they
gave up possession of it. If they can make autos with a breathalyzer built-in
before you can start the engine, I think it only fair there should be something
like that on all high-end cameras too. Think of how many people's eyesight would
be saved from having to view their photographic eyesores at every turn. There
should be a law against people who can't handle a camera properly. They are an
affront to my right to find happiness. That alone is a huge crime of theirs.

On May 21, 10:05 am, "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote:
> <anira...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
> >I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> > Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
> > by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
> > differences between the two cameras.FZ50is approx. 50% more
> > expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
> > in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
> > My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
> > only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
> > Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
> > better quality on the photos forFz50. But it is so much bulkier and
> > heavier than theFz8. However, I do like the feel on theFz50than the
> >Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought theFz8
> > and wondering if he/she should have opt for theFz50instead.
> > Thanks for info
>
> FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
> better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
> any large Panasonic.
>
> --
> Jeff R.
> (no kidding - its *horrible*)

I strongly dissagree. I owned an FZ30 for a while before moving to a
dSLR. I found it a great camera to use - easily the best P&S I've
owned - and got some nice shots with it. It's got a decent lens and
good controls that give quick access to most settings. The only major
gripe I had with it is the high level of noise from the sensor (or
associated major artifacts from the Noise reduction in the camera).
However this does not normally affect standard prints really - it's of
most concern when trying to shoot in low light (which is this camera
is very bad at) or when printing at large sizes. This camera (and the
FZ50) offers a lot of great features (including v good optical IS/VR),
and a build standard higher than many entry level dSLRs - calling it a
POS is just OTT. What were your specific problems with it? (I assume
it was noise/noise reduction related).

S

I think you will find this interesting reading:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/


--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.

Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> On May 20, 12:22 pm, "Stan Beck" <stan...@neworleansphotographs.com>
> wrote:
>> If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7
>> megapixel
>> will give overall better results than the 10 megapixel, which will have
>> considerably more noise in the image, and will produce generally poorer
>> results hat higher ISO settings. Since a 4" x 6" print only requires 2
>> megapixels for a good print, the 7 megapixel is more than enough.
>>
>> --
>> I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
>>
>> Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
>> To reply, remove 101 from address.
>> ***
> I forgot to mention another difference between the Fz8 and Fz50 -
> Fz50's sensor is larger than the Fz8's ( 1/1.8" vs 1/2.5")
>

I have a Panasonic FZ10, and it's a great little camera, for it's class, and
was better than most of the comparable cameras of that time. But I can't
really compare it to my Nikon D200. Naturally, my D200 photos are better.

--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.

Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> On May 21, 10:05 am, "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote:
>> <anira...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>
>> >I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>> > Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
>> > by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
>> > differences between the two cameras.FZ50is approx. 50% more
>> > expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
>> > in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
>> > My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
>> > only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
>> > Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
>> > better quality on the photos forFz50. But it is so much bulkier and
>> > heavier than theFz8. However, I do like the feel on theFz50than the
>> >Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought theFz8
>> > and wondering if he/she should have opt for theFz50instead.
>> > Thanks for info
>>
>> FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
>> better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few
>> miles)
>> any large Panasonic.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
>> (no kidding - its *horrible*)
>
> I strongly dissagree. I owned an FZ30 for a while before moving to a
> dSLR. I found it a great camera to use - easily the best P&S I've
> owned - and got some nice shots with it. It's got a decent lens and
> good controls that give quick access to most settings. The only major
> gripe I had with it is the high level of noise from the sensor (or
> associated major artifacts from the Noise reduction in the camera).
> However this does not normally affect standard prints really - it's of
> most concern when trying to shoot in low light (which is this camera
> is very bad at) or when printing at large sizes. This camera (and the
> FZ50) offers a lot of great features (including v good optical IS/VR),
> and a build standard higher than many entry level dSLRs - calling it a
> POS is just OTT. What were your specific problems with it? (I assume
> it was noise/noise reduction related).
>
> S
>

In message <465152b6$0$610$(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff R.
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
>>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
>> by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
>> differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
>> expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
>> in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
>> My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
>> only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
>> Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
>> better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
>> heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
>> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
>> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
>> Thanks for info
>
>
>FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
>better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
>any large Panasonic.
>
>--
>Jeff R.
>(no kidding - its *horrible*)
>
>
I have to differ here. The only two complaints I have with my FZ30 is
that the zoom ought to equate to a 28-300mm rather than the 35-420mm
that it is. It would be useful to have more wide-angle capability, as
the extreme telephoto length never gets used. The other problem is a
tendency to purple-fringing on some high-contrast parts of a picture.
Overall, it's still among the best prosumer wide-range zoom cameras.
--
Chris Morriss