• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ72 Review (1 Viewer)

ChrisKten

It's true, I quite like Pigeons
I thought I'd post a link to the first "proper" review of this camera, as I know a few here are interested in it. No surprises for me; it's what I expected from seeing the sample images a few weeks ago. I won't be selling my FZ150 to get this camera ;)
 
I thought I'd post a link to the first "proper" review of this camera, as I know a few here are interested in it. No surprises for me; it's what I expected from seeing the sample images a few weeks ago. I won't be selling my FZ150 to get this camera ;)

The thought was nice, but including the link would be even nicer. ;)
 
The Lumix Fz72-any good for birding

Dear Chriskten

Thank you for posting the link. I am a novice with cameras, although I got the chance to try out the Canon Powershot 50 x optical zoom camera when birding, and thought it was great.
Now Panasonic have come out with a 60 x optical zoom. I would have thought this is even better. However I noted you werent impressed.
Would you not recommend the FZ72 and if so why not please
Ian
 
Dear Chriskten

Thank you for posting the link. I am a novice with cameras, although I got the chance to try out the Canon Powershot 50 x optical zoom camera when birding, and thought it was great.
Now Panasonic have come out with a 60 x optical zoom. I would have thought this is even better. However I noted you werent impressed.
Would you not recommend the FZ72 and if so why not please
Ian

Hi Ian,

It's not that I wouldn't recommend it, it's just that my Panasonic FZ150 already does everything that I want.

The extra zoom of the FZ72 would be useful, but at a cost. Smaller Apertures at longer focal lengths would mean less light to the sensor; so slower shutter speeds and/or higher ISO. I wasn't impressed with the image quality of the FZ72 at higher ISOs; whereas I'm happy to use ISO800 on my FZ150.

If I didn't already own the FZ150, I'd be more likely to get the FZ200 than the FZ72. In the UK we get poor light often, and the constant Aperture of the FZ200 would allow lower ISOs to be used in poor light.

And... just because it's newer, doesn't mean it's better ;)
 
Last edited:
I am a novice with cameras, although I got the chance to try out the Canon Powershot 50 x optical zoom camera when birding, and thought it was great.
Now Panasonic have come out with a 60 x optical zoom. I would have thought this is even better.

Just wanted to note that the Canon and the FZ72 both have the same maximum zoom magnification even though one is 50x and the other is 60x. (The maximum mag is 1200mm 35mm equivalent--which is like a 24x binocular or scope (human eye is appx 50mm), or 48x with the teleconverter option enabled). The panny can claim "60x" because it has a lower minimum magnification--i.e. the maximum is 60 times the minimum. It's unfortunate camera manufacturers use this misleading terminology.

Best,
Jim
 
Just wanted to note that the Canon and the FZ72 both have the same maximum zoom magnification even though one is 50x and the other is 60x. (The maximum mag is 1200mm 35mm equivalent--which is like a 24x binocular or scope (human eye is appx 50mm), or 48x with the teleconverter option enabled). The panny can claim "60x" because it has a lower minimum magnification--i.e. the maximum is 60 times the minimum. It's unfortunate camera manufacturers use this misleading terminology.

Best,
Jim

They tell lies, Jim ;)

Unfortunately magnification is a seller now, so the manufacturers have latched on to it. They'll go back to megapixels when they can't increase magnification. They'e already upped the FZ72 to 16.1mp, when the 12mp of the FZ150 was fine
 
I have owned a FZ72 for just over a week and have taken hundreds of shots with it and I am absolutely thrilled with it. It really is a great bit of kit. The image stabiliser is even better meaning you can get great results hand held at full magnification. Also earlier models found it difficult to focus on small objects in the sky but this camera is much improved. I think it is brilliant.
 
Richard,
thanks for sharing. Which exact model is the previous one you are comparing to?

thanks
Niels
 
I know magnification has become the big thing, but I want this because I wish to get close in with my shots so that when I get home I can examine them and be able to identify the birds
 
I have used mine as a 'scope'. I could see a sparrow in the distance and thought I think thats tree but with the binos I couldn't quite make out enough. With the camera I could id the bird! 60*optic plus 5 times digital is a massive 300times...

There are some pictures on here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=269164

I should point out that I'm no David Bailey (if people remember him) and also don't reel off hundreds of pictures of the same bird.

I have stated on other threads that I think I will probably use about 20% of the cameras ability. I have upped the ISO to 400 which gives a good compromise for speed and quality. I also shoot in 'A'perture priority which tends to take pictures in the region of 'f' stop 8. Any advantage is gained with depth of view. I'm still experimenting with the focussing modes to try and get the best option for birds in flight but at the moment whilst not perfect is miles better than my old panasonic.
 
Hi Ian,

It's not that I wouldn't recommend it, it's just that my Panasonic FZ150 already does everything that I want.

If I didn't already own the FZ150, I'd be more likely to get the FZ200 than the FZ72. In the UK we get poor light often, and the constant Aperture of the FZ200 would allow lower ISOs to be used in poor light.

And... just because it's newer, doesn't mean it's better ;)

Not the best approach to adopt, if you are satisfied with what you already have all well and good. If you are buying new it is best to try to compare perfprmance with the earlier camera within the zooming range of the older camera if performance in that area matches then the extra zoom range will be a bonus and may give you someting extra and that becomes a good argement for getting the updated version. Its worth remembering that a couple years ago that some of us were playing about with FZ18,28 and 38s and hapilly using adapters to extend the zoom range and not seeing any reason to upgrade to the then new fangled 24x zoom cameras.
 
I have used mine as a 'scope'. I could see a sparrow in the distance and thought I think thats tree but with the binos I couldn't quite make out enough. With the camera I could id the bird! 60*optic plus 5 times digital is a massive 300times...

There are some pictures on here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=269164

I should point out that I'm no David Bailey (if people remember him) and also don't reel off hundreds of pictures of the same bird.

I have stated on other threads that I think I will probably use about 20% of the cameras ability. I have upped the ISO to 400 which gives a good compromise for speed and quality. I also shoot in 'A'perture priority which tends to take pictures in the region of 'f' stop 8. Any advantage is gained with depth of view. I'm still experimenting with the focussing modes to try and get the best option for birds in flight but at the moment whilst not perfect is miles better than my old panasonic.

I do not know if your camera has this feature but I would expect it to: I would likely use an auto-iso maxed at 400 (or even 800 in your case?) so that in great light I got the best results and in poorer light I would not have to think about changing iso. That is what I used to do on my FZ18 when that was my camera. Today with a GH2 I use auto-iso maxed at 3200 ;)

Niels
 
I have a Panasonic FZ62 I don't suppose anyone has any advice on what settings to use to ensure I get the best bird photos possible?
 
FZ70 and FZ72 the same thing apparentlyyyyy

Thanks for the review link if only to find out in the first paragraph that the FZ72 is also known as the FZ70 - and here I was getting all confused:-C

Why the difference in numbers? Only the 70 is for sale on Amazon (US) and at 246.00 and change is over a hundred dollars cheaper than the Canon SX50 (388.00) or the Sony HX300 (398.00)

Still not sure which way to jump in replacing my 24x Lumix. The intermittent problem with the focus makes me a little leary of another Lumix. Yet I'm not sure I want to get familiar with another type of camera.

The Canon is MP 12 vs. 16.1 - is 16.1 better?

Honestly I'm such a low end user - point and snap. I want the long zoom for bird id. Don't care about RAW vs. whatever. Ease of use, fast focus etc are primary concerns.


Hmmm, found a comparison article and here's an excerpt - the FZ70 doesn't have a flip out screen? I like that, and the ones that twist. He also mentions no wifi or gps, on't give a dang about wifi, not sure about GPS. But it is cheaper than the SX50 and there doesn't seem to be a replacement coming

One other thing to consider is the SX50 HS's age. Released in September 2012 its price has now fallen to the point where you can pick it up considerably cheaper than the Lumix FZ70 / FZ72. Look beyond the numbers - the differences in zoom range and sensor resolution - and these models are quite closely matched with the SX50 HS offering the key advantage of a flip-out LCD screen, albeit slightly smaller than the FZ70 / FZ72's. Also expect a successor to the SX50 HS before Christmas 2013.

At 100.00 cheaper I would go for the FZ70 I think but without the flip out screen I'm feeling a bit lost
 
Last edited:
Mary, there is also the new Nikon P600 now. This has a flip-out screen, x60, hi-res 900k screen and it's smaller. However if I was choosing a camera not only for birding but for all round use then the Fuji HS50XR has much more going for it than the rest, including far better low light use and phase detect AF for much faster AF lock-on. Both have in-camera panos (very useful if you are not looking for top quality IQ) and both have flip-out screens.

On these small sensor cameras the MP count is not important. 10-12MP is more than enough and in fact the new Sony super-zoom bridge has 20MP. I fail to see how that is of any benefit other than to the marketing dept. In fact it is surely detrimental to the IQ cramming all those MPs on to a tiny sensor.

Personally I am going to add the Lumix FZ72 to my DSLR kit but that is simply for the ability of that camera to simulate, or exceed, a scope's reach. Which will be 95% of it's use (on a tripod - even though it has in-camera stabilisation which will hardly be of any benefit at 2,000mm plus) ! There is an add-on extension (TC) that can be added to the lens to get it well past a 2,000mm equivalent, optically not digitally, so IQ is not that relevant, IDing birds is ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top