Winterdune
Well-known member
I think officially they are announced tomorrow. The FZ200 has F2.8 available throughout its 25-600mm range!!
Sean
Sean
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
FZ200 and G5 announced (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Winterdune
- Start date
Looks like Olympus may have marginally bested the Panasonic G3/GH2 with a new micro four-thirds camera according to this review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/
So G5 may be Panasonic's response. I never get excited about announcements though. Always wait for the reviews if you can.
Jim
So G5 may be Panasonic's response. I never get excited about announcements though. Always wait for the reviews if you can.
Jim
Last edited:
Given you're the only person on the forum I'm aware who has the GH2, I suspect it's not been a hot seller for Panasonic, so I wonder if Panasonic will update that line. But we'll see.
More info about G5 here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...g5-mirrorless-new-lens-announced-with-preview And still more here: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-g5/ Seems to be moving closer to GH2 with auto EVF/LCD switching, bigger grip, and better video quality.
Jim
Last edited:
Wildmoreway
Well-known member
They have also announced an FZ62 with 24 x zoom and 16MP sensor..
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-fz62---fz60-hands-on-first-look-19710
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-fz62---fz60-hands-on-first-look-19710
Winterdune
Well-known member
As well as the F2.8 throughout, this really excites me about the FZ200:
"However, the electronic viewfinder's resolution jumps from 201,600 dots to 1,312,000 dots".
Panasonic do seem to be trying very hard to respond to criticisms with this camera. Pity the VF looks like it's still hard plastic - my specs have taken a battering because of this...
Sean
PS for Niels - weight 537g (FZ150 484g)
"However, the electronic viewfinder's resolution jumps from 201,600 dots to 1,312,000 dots".
Panasonic do seem to be trying very hard to respond to criticisms with this camera. Pity the VF looks like it's still hard plastic - my specs have taken a battering because of this...
Sean
PS for Niels - weight 537g (FZ150 484g)
Last edited:
Hobbes2
Well-known member
I wholeheartedly agree with you Hor Kee. That or a 100-400mm zoom (improving on the 100-300mm already in circulation). That extra reach makes all the difference. I cannot carry a Canon 7d and 100-400mm lens - it's just too heavy.
Hobbes
Hobbes2
Well-known member
The f2.8 through the whole range is most interesting and appealing. My main gripe about the FZ150 is the bokeh is horrible. You get sharp shots of the birds but the huge depth of field and lack of smooth blur (for want of a better term) isn't always what you want. For artistic, aesthetically pleasing images you are almost forced back to bigger sensor cameras.
Anyway, I wait with interest to see the sample shots.
Hobbes
Just do remember that the reach of the 100-300 on a m43 is equivalent to 600 mm while the 7D w 100-400 maxes out at 1.6*400 = 640 mm equivalent. But yes, a lens with longer reach and optimized for the long end rather than the short end would be fantastic.
Niels
At DPReview, there seems to be quite a few posters that use the GH2, so I think we will see a GH3. But I also agree that it has been difficult to argue for bird photos that the extra cost over the G3 was justified by additional quality.
Niels
For me there are 3 advantages of the superzoom over a DSLR:
Cost, small size and the practicality of having everything from wide angle to max zoom in one package
m4/3 type cameras, while I guess there is a step up in quality, you lose at least one of those advantages and thats why they don't appeal to me for wildlife pics.
I'm still weighing up my options, but I think I'm almost decided to upgrade my FZ38 to either the new FZ200 or the Canon SX40...
Cost, small size and the practicality of having everything from wide angle to max zoom in one package
m4/3 type cameras, while I guess there is a step up in quality, you lose at least one of those advantages and thats why they don't appeal to me for wildlife pics.
I'm still weighing up my options, but I think I'm almost decided to upgrade my FZ38 to either the new FZ200 or the Canon SX40...
There was a comment in one of the links I provided about the Extended Teleconverter option now giving a max of 4.8x (think G3 was max 3.6x with video) without impacting image quality. No more details, but if the virtual teleconverter would give 4x for stills, rather than the current 2x (using the small picture size), that would be an ideal solution, from my perspective, to the problem of wanting more reach. It would give the extra reach one would want without extra weight or the expense of an extra lens or the decrease in light from a physical teleconverter.
Jim
Last edited:
Another advantage of the m4/3 over superzoom is manual zoom on the long lens. Have found the ability to first find the bird while zoomed out to be quite handy--and manual zoom is faster and more intuitive than fiddling with a switch.
Also, if you use a teleconverter on a superzoom, which many do, you lose the advantage of having everything in one package because you can't zoom out all the way the TC on (at least on the Pannys I've used).
Jim
One of the things that made me make the step up from FZ18 to a m43 was the lack of low light ability (for example a bird in undergrowth in a dark rainforest). Even though superzooms have improved I am not sure they have closed the gap.
Niels
Murray Lord
Well-known member
If I understand correctly which function you are talking about, I think the extended teleconverter option is only available for video. It's because to shoot HD video you don't need to use the whole of a 16 megapixel sensor, as the HD video is only going to be 1920 pixels wide. You could shoot stills the same way, but you'd be turning a 16 megapixel sensor into something more like a 3 megapixel sensor, and getting exactly the same result as if you just took a shot without a teleconverter and cropped it later.
I'm not saying it's a useless feature (I wish my Canon offered the same), but it's only useful for video.
No. It's useful for jpeg stills as well--I use it constantly and have used it in other panny cameras as well. But you have to use the small or medium picture size. And it's not the same as cropping and enlarging--enlarging impairs the image quality while this does not (as the manual says). This has been discussed before, and I've also tested it in a number of ways. I definitely don't have the same "reach" if I use the large picture size and just enlarge the photo.
I used to think it was a gimmick, but now I believe it's just what the name implies--it's a virtual teleconverter. I believe it's equivalent to increasing the "crop factor" of the camera, but don't claim to know with certainty the precise mechanism involved.
Jim
