Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5?

I am considering one of these. Usage will be general, e.g. family and
friends, holidays, nothing specialised.
Do like the occasional bit of macro, flowers, insects etc.

The FZ5 seems to get mostly pretty good reviews. Any cameras in the same
price range and size (wouldnt want anything significantly larger than the
FZ5) I should also be considering? I see the canon S2 is much heavier, was
impressed with the low weight of the Panny also when I held one at a show
the other day.

TIA
--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

 

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 22:16:46 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
<> wrote:

>I am considering one of these. Usage will be general, e.g. family and
>friends, holidays, nothing specialised.
>Do like the occasional bit of macro, flowers, insects etc.
>
>The FZ5 seems to get mostly pretty good reviews. Any cameras in the same
>price range and size (wouldnt want anything significantly larger than the
>FZ5) I should also be considering? I see the canon S2 is much heavier, was
>impressed with the low weight of the Panny also when I held one at a show
>the other day.

The Konica-Minolta DiMAGE Z5 is another contender in that format/price
range.


--
Mark

 

Hi ,I have the Panasonic FZ20 and it really is good.The long zoom has been
really useful.
Pictures are excellent ,and having previously used a conventional Canon
SLR,find digital a whole lot more useful!

Regards Roy

"Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I am considering one of these. Usage will be general, e.g. family and
>friends, holidays, nothing specialised.
> Do like the occasional bit of macro, flowers, insects etc.
>
> The FZ5 seems to get mostly pretty good reviews. Any cameras in the same
> price range and size (wouldnt want anything significantly larger than the
> FZ5) I should also be considering? I see the canon S2 is much heavier,
> was impressed with the low weight of the Panny also when I held one at a
> show the other day.
>
> TIA
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>

 

I use for a year now, the FZ3, the previous model with only 3MPixels. I had
exactly the same goals that you and I'm really happy with this. Only
negative is that when you switch to higher sensitivity, you get a lot of
noise, but this seems to be general to this range of products...

"Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I am considering one of these. Usage will be general, e.g. family and
>friends, holidays, nothing specialised.
> Do like the occasional bit of macro, flowers, insects etc.
>
> The FZ5 seems to get mostly pretty good reviews. Any cameras in the same
> price range and size (wouldnt want anything significantly larger than the
> FZ5) I should also be considering? I see the canon S2 is much heavier,
> was impressed with the low weight of the Panny also when I held one at a
> show the other day.
>
> TIA
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>

 

Ordered one today

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
"jean Davy" <> wrote in message
news:42ca2ade$0$3720$...
>I use for a year now, the FZ3, the previous model with only 3MPixels. I had
>exactly the same goals that you and I'm really happy with this. Only
>negative is that when you switch to higher sensitivity, you get a lot of
>noise, but this seems to be general to this range of products...
>
> "Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I am considering one of these. Usage will be general, e.g. family and
>>friends, holidays, nothing specialised.
>> Do like the occasional bit of macro, flowers, insects etc.
>>
>> The FZ5 seems to get mostly pretty good reviews. Any cameras in the same
>> price range and size (wouldnt want anything significantly larger than the
>> FZ5) I should also be considering? I see the canon S2 is much heavier,
>> was impressed with the low weight of the Panny also when I held one at a
>> show the other day.
>>
>> TIA
>> --
>> Tumbleweed
>>
>> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
>> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>>
>
>