• 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 FZ-200 (1 Viewer)

Hi Firsttreesjohn, I had both cameras on AWB. Both had the same contrast, sharpness, saturation and noise reduction settings. I was trying to get them to have as close as possible the same set-up. I did however let the FZ200 use the F2.8 setting, which the FZ150 can't match. So that was the main difference. There were some shots I took where the ISO's were different mainly because the FZ150 couldn't match the FZ200's lower ISO in the conditions at the time. Some shots were taken with both cameras at ISO100 the Pied Heron was one case. The Flower, the ISO on the FZ150 was 100, but on the FZ200 it was 250. The Egret (whitish bird) the ISO was 100 for the FZ200 and 125 for the FZ150. I was trying to get them all the same, but I overlooked a couple of things in the process. One aspect of it was, that I just wanted the camera to do its thing and see the result.
I agree with you that a new model should be an improvement on the older one, but as you pointed out, its not always that way.
Glad you are happy with your camera, I'm very happy with the FZ150, I think its one of their best, but was hoping for a better low light performance with the FZ200. I think it does that, but struggles in image quality. Its now playing up on me telling me every so often that there is an error with my card. I have changed cards and that didn't make any difference. I have also taken a couple of shots with it that never appeared to write to the card, in other words the shutter clicked and when I went to review the shot, it wasn't there. It could be the card, I may have to buy a new one and see if it likes that any better. If it doesn't its going back.
 
scodgerott said:
Here are some more comparisons between the FZ150 and the FZ200. In these instances I think the FZ200 did a little bit better than the FZ150. You will also notice the background is more blurred in the FZ200 shots, so there is some bokeh using the F2.8 aperture. I do have a few more to upload where the FZ150 did better and it does tend to do better more often than not. I will be playing a bit more with the settings on the FZ200 to see if I can consistently get images that equal that of the FZ150. I am not expecting better quality, except in lower light.
Click to expand...

Hi Roger,
Many thanks for taking the time/effort to prepare these and the other comparison shots. It's really useful. I agree, you've achieved a nicer bokeh on the FZ200 shots here, which is good to see. That is probably my main issue with the FZ150 - you can get nice sharp shots but artistically they don't look good, lol.
All the best
Hobbes
 
scodgerott said:
Hi Firsttreesjohn, I had both cameras on AWB. Both had the same contrast, sharpness, saturation and noise reduction settings. I was trying to get them to have as close as possible the same set-up. I did however let the FZ200 use the F2.8 setting, which the FZ150 can't match. So that was the main difference. There were some shots I took where the ISO's were different mainly because the FZ150 couldn't match the FZ200's lower ISO in the conditions at the time. Some shots were taken with both cameras at ISO100 the Pied Heron was one case. The Flower, the ISO on the FZ150 was 100, but on the FZ200 it was 250. The Egret (whitish bird) the ISO was 100 for the FZ200 and 125 for the FZ150. I was trying to get them all the same, but I overlooked a couple of things in the process. One aspect of it was, that I just wanted the camera to do its thing and see the result.
I agree with you that a new model should be an improvement on the older one, but as you pointed out, its not always that way.
Glad you are happy with your camera, I'm very happy with the FZ150, I think its one of their best, but was hoping for a better low light performance with the FZ200. I think it does that, but struggles in image quality. Its now playing up on me telling me every so often that there is an error with my card. I have changed cards and that didn't make any difference. I have also taken a couple of shots with it that never appeared to write to the card, in other words the shutter clicked and when I went to review the shot, it wasn't there. It could be the card, I may have to buy a new one and see if it likes that any better. If it doesn't its going back.
Click to expand...

I am starting to wonder if you have a lemon or if this really is the level that this camera has

Niels
 
firstreesjohn said:
Have you made any adjustments in camera, ‘scodgerott’:

They do seem to have done this several times with these Lumixes: alternate models should be upgrades and, therefore, better- but turn out not as good as the previous one. (Particularly the FZ-45 and 100, after the 38.)
Click to expand...

I had an FZ38 and an FZ45, I found the FZ45 to be superior by a long margin to the FZ38, sadly though it did not survive being dropped.
 
FZ150 or FZ200?

Upgrading to a bridge camera from a Fuji Finepix S5700. The Panasonic seems the one to beat but this thread creates a bit of confusion for me. Would it be fair to say - buy the FZ200 unless you already have the 150 (in which case it may not be worth upgrading unless you really need the f2.8?) Obviously for me the 150 is quite a bit cheaper but I is the 200 is the better camera overall?
 
AndrewF123 said:
Upgrading to a bridge camera from a Fuji Finepix S5700. The Panasonic seems the one to beat but this thread creates a bit of confusion for me. Would it be fair to say - buy the FZ200 unless you already have the 150 (in which case it may not be worth upgrading unless you really need the f2.8?) Obviously for me the 150 is quite a bit cheaper but I is the 200 is the better camera overall?
Click to expand...

I just took my FZ200 back, as it had a fault. I'm getting a replacement in two days, so I will have to wait and see if its as good as my FZ150. The faulty one wasn't. It would be unfair to judge the FZ200 by the standard of the camera I returned, as the FZ150 beat it most times for image quality, although not in every instance. The new one should be as good, but I won't be able to test it until early next week.
 
speckled wood said:
I had an FZ38 and an FZ45, I found the FZ45 to be superior by a long margin to the FZ38, sadly though it did not survive being dropped.
Click to expand...

That’s interesting. While I went straight from 38 to 150, I saw some most unimpressive results out of the 45 from both local birders and a trial few with someone else’s, myself.

Also, much blog-comment seemed unfavourable.

But, I’m glad your 45 did the job, ‘speckled wood’.
 
I have been blown away by the quality of HD video from my FZ150 when viewed on my HD TV.

The video is not only outstanding on close birds but is brilliant for flying birds producing results that are much better (and easier) than trying to get a still image of the flying bird. I have even managed to get record footage of birds at up to several hudred metres sea watching.

However, I can only view the files on my TV. My PC will not open the MTS file format.

I would like to be able to edit the sequences, cutting out the dross and run them together, nothing fancy just basic stuff!

Can anyone recommend suitable software?

Incidentally i have also hand held digiscoped/video scoped with the FZ150 on my Kowa 883 and zoom. Though the vignetting is chronic, i have got watchable footage of say golden plover that nearly fills (the depth) on my 32 inch TV screen. I plan to explore this further.

Many thanks
 
Last edited:
VLC player is best for simply viewing them. Various editing software can be used but you need to copy the whole AVCHD folder over to your PC so that the entire file structure is intact, not just the .mts files. Note though that if you use full 1080 50p you might well need a more professional (and expensive) editing program than freebies like Windows Movie Maker. I use Adobe Premiere Pro.
Sean
 
I picked up a new FZ200 two days ago and have been testing it out against the FZ150. In some cases the FZ150 is better and in others the FZ200 is better. In either case the difference isn't great. There were some shots I took that I couldn't tell the difference at all. What I did notice, is that most of the time the FZ200 is operating at either a higher shutter speed, or a lower ISO for the same lighting and subject. I'm posting a couple of shots I took today. You will see that there's not much in it even when the FZ150 is using a much higher ISO. Both shots were taken in S priority and a shutter speed of 1/640 second.
 

Attachments

  • Kingfisher.jpg
    Kingfisher.jpg
    350.9 KB · Views: 809
  • Curlew.jpg
    Curlew.jpg
    345.9 KB · Views: 746
Swissboy said:
scodgerott said:
....there's not much in it .......
I notice that the focus differs on the kingfisher. And the color balance is quite bit different. Looks like the FZ200 is a bit on the reddish side. But that can undoubtedly be adjusted too. I have my FZ150 on M-.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% about the colour difference. I actually like the colour on the FZ150 better, but I don't have the same saturation and contrast settings on both cameras, however I don't think they would make a huge difference. I'm posting two more comparisons and then will just post single images from the FZ200. In neither of these images is one much better than the other. Which is all I expect. I wasn't ever expecting the FZ200 to give a better image than the FZ150, just better in lower lighting situations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • pied heron.jpg
    pied heron.jpg
    339.4 KB · Views: 472
  • sacred kingfisher.jpg
    sacred kingfisher.jpg
    268.8 KB · Views: 825
In this post, both herons look overexposed, the fz200 more so. With the kingfisher. I like the result with fz200 better, but I do not know exactly what the bird should have looked like.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
In this post, both herons look overexposed, the fz200 more so. With the kingfisher. I like the result with fz200 better, but I do not know exactly what the bird should have looked like.

Niels
Click to expand...

Hi Niels, thanks for your comments, they are always helpful. You're correct in that the herons are both over exposed, especially on the white areas. I have noticed a tendency for the FZ200 to do that more that the FZ150. I think its because of the lower aperture allowing in more light. Its something I"ll have to watch when shooting any bird that had a reasonable amount of white on its body. The kingfishers look good in my opinion, or maybe a fraction dark. I'm attaching another shot, this time just from the FZ200 of a Blue Faced Honeyeater. I thinks its image quality is pretty good, although the whites are still a bit blown out.
 

Attachments

  • Blue Faced Honeyeater.JPG
    Blue Faced Honeyeater.JPG
    284.8 KB · Views: 623
Thanks again, ‘scodgerott’, for the time and effort you’re taking for us on this.

Is the focussing faster on the 200 ? I find the 150 painfully slow in lower-light conditions.

And did you adjust the AWB and/or Contrast for any of these shots- particularly the recent herons ?

As I’ve previously said, I think I’ll wait for the 250- if it has manual focus on the barrel of the lens. (Panasonic: please note!)
 
firstreesjohn said:
Thanks again, ‘scodgerott’, for the time and effort you’re taking for us on this.

Is the focussing faster on the 200 ? I find the 150 painfully slow in lower-light conditions.

And did you adjust the AWB and/or Contrast for any of these shots- particularly the recent herons ?

As I’ve previously said, I think I’ll wait for the 250- if it has manual focus on the barrel of the lens. (Panasonic: please note!)
Click to expand...

i haven't really noticed the focus being any faster, but it is fast most of the time. It does slow in lower light and sometimes won't focus at all on some well lit subjects, but the FZ150 did that at times as well.

In the heron shot I took a bit of the highlights off to try and minimise the blow out of the whites on the front of the heron. It was the same for both the 150 and 200. I haven't touched white balance at all.
 
scodgerott said:
i haven't really noticed the focus being any faster, but it is fast most of the time. It does slow in lower light and sometimes won't focus at all on some well lit subjects, but the FZ150 did that at times as well.

In the heron shot I took a bit of the highlights off to try and minimise the blow out of the whites on the front of the heron. It was the same for both the 150 and 200. I haven't touched white balance at all.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for all your efforts to satisfy us interested non-FZ200 owners. I guess, it's not that much of a step up from the FZ150 to warrant a change. Though that improved low-light option is interesting. You probably have not really gone to the limits yet in this respect in your comparison.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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.

Similar threads

A
Help needed with RX10-iv workflow
Replies
11
Views
1K
andrewsheerin
A
MelospizaMelodiaFan
Upgrading from Bridge Camera to M43
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Missy_MT_AK
M
W
Considering a Partial Camera Upgrade - D500 w/ 200-500mm lens
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
BriLee
B
S
Odd duck, Filey Dams, Yorkshire UK
Replies
9
Views
752
Periwinkle
P
C
AX Visio: is it really as bad as some reviewers claim??
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
7K
Canip
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top