Doug Greenberg
Well-known member
I'm an inveterate gadget freak, I confess, and I've become intrigued by the idea of getting a Panasonic Lumix camera as a "walkaround" and travel camera for when I don't want to take my full DSLR rig. With the 12x Leica zoom lens, it seems like it's possible, at least, to get some decent bird photos "on the fly" so to speak, without toting a lot of equipment.
I've investigated, and having done so I cannot at this moment decide between the "top of the line" DMC-FZ20 and the smaller, lighter, slightly less expensive DMC-FZ5. The advantages of the former seem to be that the lens is very slightly faster at full zoom and includes an ED element. Also, there is a flash hot shoe (which I would be unlikely to use much) and available manual focus. But on the other hand, it weighs twice as much as the DMC-FZ5.
The bottom line for me would be a comparison of performance. If the photos taken with the DMC-FZ5 were as good as the larger camera's, particularly at 432 mm., I'd go with the smaller one. I've done some research and found contradictory opinions on this matter. One web review claims that the photos are virtually identical. Another review, however, states that the image quality from the DMC-FZ5 is discernibly inferior to the DMC-FZ20.
Has anyone out there used either or both cameras in the field? Any thoughts, reactions, opinions, regrets? Again, if it were clear that the DMC-FZ20 produces better results at full tele (e.g., for bird photos), its extra size, weight, and cost would be tolerable. But if the difference is marginal or nonexistent, the smaller size of the DMC-FZ5 would win the day.
Thanks for any replies.
Doug
I've investigated, and having done so I cannot at this moment decide between the "top of the line" DMC-FZ20 and the smaller, lighter, slightly less expensive DMC-FZ5. The advantages of the former seem to be that the lens is very slightly faster at full zoom and includes an ED element. Also, there is a flash hot shoe (which I would be unlikely to use much) and available manual focus. But on the other hand, it weighs twice as much as the DMC-FZ5.
The bottom line for me would be a comparison of performance. If the photos taken with the DMC-FZ5 were as good as the larger camera's, particularly at 432 mm., I'd go with the smaller one. I've done some research and found contradictory opinions on this matter. One web review claims that the photos are virtually identical. Another review, however, states that the image quality from the DMC-FZ5 is discernibly inferior to the DMC-FZ20.
Has anyone out there used either or both cameras in the field? Any thoughts, reactions, opinions, regrets? Again, if it were clear that the DMC-FZ20 produces better results at full tele (e.g., for bird photos), its extra size, weight, and cost would be tolerable. But if the difference is marginal or nonexistent, the smaller size of the DMC-FZ5 would win the day.
Thanks for any replies.
Doug