Panasonic FZ2 - my first impressions

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by Barry Smith, Oct 24, 2003.

  1. Barry Smith

    Barry Smith Guest

    Rather than wait for the FZ10 which is larger, heavier and will be more
    expensive, I've just bought the FZ2.

    First impressions - lighter than I expected (especially the battery)
    and very comfortable to hold and the image stabiliser does a great job.

    Like I (and I presume many others) tend to do, I had a quick flip
    through the manual, installed the software and started 'playing'.

    Although there are lots of options, I found the menus and the rotating
    selector knob very easy to use and all the controls seem to be in convenient
    positions for a right-handed person. I've no doubt that most, if not all,
    cameras have been designed for right-handed people. I wonder how those
    who are left-handed cope ?

    Downloading the images to the PC (with the software provided) was very easy.
    I then transferred them across the network to my RISCOS computer for (possible)
    processing and (extra) storage and from there to another HD. They'll get burned
    to CDs when I've enough images. You can never have too many backups :)

    I have a couple of questions for FZ1/FZ2 owners -

    Using the supplied software it has ceated several identical files, numbered
    130715, 130715(1), 130715(2) etc. of each image. Is this normal ? If so what's
    the reason for all the extra files ?

    I've uploaded three to my website. Note that these are 'raw' images.
    Raw in the sense that no processing or cropping has been done.

    My EXIFinfo program gives odd figures for the focal length. The pictures
    Horse 9.20mm, Tree 8.90mm, Flower (macro) 20.30mm. My best guess is that
    the focal length in use was probably 10 times those figures. At the
    moment I don't know whether it's the EXIF data that's wrong or my (RISCOS)
    software which reads it. Any ideas ?

    Conclusion - I'm very happy with it so far. Once I get some images worth
    printing, I intend to get various sizes done and I'll report back on
    the quality of them.

    Barry Smith, Oct 24, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Barry Smith

    Barry Smith Guest

    In message <>
    OK. That explains a lot. Thanks. I'm so used to 35mm, having used
    SLRs for nearly 30 years !

    I've found it now in the back of the handbook - 4.6 to 55.2 mm,
    so if I multiply by 7.6 I'll get the 35mm equivalent.
    Using my RISCOS computer I can load the jpeg and save it as a sprite
    (equivalent to bitmap), edit ndividual pixels, crop, rotate, alter
    colour balance etc. then re-save it as jpeg. It might lose some 'quality'
    but if the end result is a more pleasing picture I think it's worth it.
    OK. I've heard of the program (and many other Windows programs) but
    I prefer to use my RISCOS machine wherever possible. This may be another
    case where I have no option but to use the PC. Thanks for the info.

    PS - The case for big zooms and image stabiliser can be seen (temporarily)
    at but the more I look
    at the image the more I feel it can have a permanent place on my site :)
    Barry Smith, Oct 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Barry Smith

    Barry Smith Guest

    In message <xKCmb.2750$>
    Flames/Trolls I ignore, constructive criticism I welcome :)
    Firstly, I only spent a few minutes playing with the image. Very minor
    changes to contrast, brightness and saturation. I have some good software
    but I haven't really used it much so far. Now I have a digital camera
    I will be using the software more and seeing what all the filters etc do.

    Secondly I didn't want to make the image too 'colourful'. It was an overcast
    day and what I see on my (LCD) screen is as true to life as I remember
    (and the picture was only taken about 10 hours ago).
    I'd be interested to see what you can do with it - as long as you
    don't object, if after that, I still prefer the original :)

    Actually, it prompted me to look at the picture again and I've done
    a little more more to it, but not that much that it looks un-natural.

    Not sure how that appears on your screen, but here the two (cropped)
    images look identical in my browser window. Saving out the files and
    viewing them, the last (bottom) picture is definitely darker. Maybe
    it's my browser ? I've another two (three if you include IE on my PC)
    browsers that I could try.

    Barry Smith, Oct 26, 2003
  4. Barry Smith

    Barry Smith Guest

    In message <MoHmb.3250$>

    The terms are familiar, but I don't want to use PC software if I
    have similar tools on my RISCOS machine. I prefer its operating system.
    Other than listing all the controls all I can say is that is seems
    very comprehensive. User definable filters (as well as preset ones),
    tinting/filtering, add white noise, etc.
    The difference (in the two images in a browser window) is noticable on my PC.
    I suspect that it's the LCD monitor I have on the RISCOS machine. My next
    upgrade includes a 19 inch CRT monitor. Should be better for looking at
    pictures, but I prefer the LCD for general work.

    Looking forward to the email. (I'm on broadband so file size is not a problem
    if you want to send several)

    Barry Smith, Oct 26, 2003
  5. Barry Smith

    Barry Smith Guest

    In message <>
    I'm not really sure in which way I suffer. There's some very good
    software and knowledgable people writing and using it. The only
    difference that I can see is that the Windows OS has *many* more users.

    Using a PC at work and RISCOS at home, I know which I prefer :)

    The latest RISCOS machine is at

    Barry Smith, Oct 26, 2003
  6. Barry Smith

    Barry Smith Guest

    In message <>
    I always have it set to 100% :)

    Lack of memory is not (yet) a problem.

    Obviously the images I (usually) put on my website are thumbnails
    which don't show the original quality anyway.

    Barry Smith, Oct 26, 2003
  7. Barry Smith

    Barry Smith Guest

    In message <>
    When I load the files for editing they are converted to Sprites, which are
    the RISCOS equivalent of TIFF etc. I can then process the picture (and edit
    individual pixels if necessary) and save back to JPG for the website.
    I'll try creating some other types of files and see what sizes I get.

    I have the choice of sprite, eps, tiff, jpeg, png, draw, pbm, bmp, mtv,
    pcx, gif, clear, & ico. Sprite & draw are specific to RISCOS. Half the
    others I don't know what they are yet ! I'm sure a websearch (or a read
    of the manual) will tell me.

    Barry Smith, Oct 28, 2003
  8. Barry Smith

    Barry Smith Guest

    In message <>
    My new scanner (Epson 2400) seems to generate TIFF by default.
    It may generate other formats but I haven't looked yet.
    Many thanks for the information.

    Having scanned some slides I can now see why people talk so much about
    copying to CD/DVD ! About 20Mb for a 2400dpi scan of one slide !

    PS I've now removed the full size images from my website. If anyone
    reading this needs a copy let me know by email
    Barry Smith, Oct 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.