-
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.
Panasonic FZ-200 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mountain man
- Start date
Highlights
The highlights on the photo you shared are, to me, totally blown out. It was one of my main concerns with the FZ200. Sadly, I ended up sending it back for that reason, along with some very strange quirks when shooting in very low light indoors. I'm sure that it is the perfect camera for many, but not for myself! I'm glad you like it so much!
The highlights on the photo you shared are, to me, totally blown out. It was one of my main concerns with the FZ200. Sadly, I ended up sending it back for that reason, along with some very strange quirks when shooting in very low light indoors. I'm sure that it is the perfect camera for many, but not for myself! I'm glad you like it so much!
scodgerott
Well-known member
Hi Dale, I agree that the highlights were totally blown out, but I have had that experience with the FZ150 as well. I would be interested to know what quirks you are referring to with the FZ200 indoors in low light, as I might be doing some of that myself quite soon.
mountain man
Guest
Photograph only female ducks :t:
mountain man
Guest
You might be onto something ...
Attachments
...problem solved 
scodgerott
Well-known member
I would try adjusting the exposure compensation value down a couple steps. That will make everything a little darker, which you should be able to adjust up, but will help keep the detail in the whites.
Winterdune
Well-known member
He already dialled in -1 EV according to the EXIF data so I'd agree that if this is not enough there's something a bit weird about the camera. I notice the shots are on multi-metering mode. Maybe try spot metering?
Sean
gergrd
GREG
I had overexposure problems with spot metering also - dialing in more than -1 EV was sometimes needed, and highlights would still blow out. I've set my FZ200 aside for a few weeks, but I see that a number of people have experienced problems with the FZ200, similar to those I saw (or worse). This thread has reinforced my impression that Panasonic has missed with this pricey bridge camera.
timmyjones
Well-known member
Just back from 2 weeks on North Ronaldsay where the FZ-200 proved invaluable! Allowing me to take shots of birds that I would not have been able to with my digiscoping set up and nailing some important record shots of rarities.
4 photos on my blog all taken with the FZ-200
http://timsbirding.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/north-ronaldsay.html
4 photos on my blog all taken with the FZ-200
http://timsbirding.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/north-ronaldsay.html
JoeRawles
Feathers Wild Bird Care
We just bought this camera for work - have always used the Lumix's but the 200 was simply irresistible. I'm the techno/ camera geek - my business partner just knows how to point and click. Once I set it up for birds he's got some amazing pictures on it, an absolutely amazing camera for the price given what you'd pay for a comparable DSLR. You can see some of his pics on his flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdbore/with/8093366912/#photo_8093366912
http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdbore/with/8093366912/#photo_8093366912
1 month with the FZ-200
OK, I've now had two of these cameras (lost one to a pickpocket or my own absentmindedness 2 days into my trip to Singapore), and here are my thoughts.
1. The autofocus is quite good and quite fast. The only negative is that it plays up from time to time and simply won't function properly, and this problem doesn't seem to be confined to very low-light shots. Luckily though, it does this pretty rarely.
2. Once you learn the controls (much like any other camera), it's quite easy to use and it's quite easy to get good shots in difficult circumstances.
3. The electronic viewfinder is quite useable, but obviously not in the same league as a dslr.
4. Exposure by spot-metering seems to do a fine job in most circumstances. Bracketing is easy to set and use.
5. The 12 frame/sec burst works and works well! I have not made extensive use of the 5.5 frames/sec burst with autofocus, but will assess that in future.
6. Image quality. A mixed bag; really good in bright light, sometimes not so good in low light situations. Much of the time the problem lies with trying to handhold the camera at slow shutter speeds in low light, but it's possible that the image comes out somewhat soft in low light even if the camera is steady. I'll follow up on this later. But if you have good light, you can achieve really nice quality images. At 12MP, you can't crop as far as some might like (a problem which may be exacerbated by the small sensor), but if you can use field craft to construct the image as you'd like it without the need to do much cropping, you can get very good results. Examples attached.
7. Unlike some folks here, I find the manual focus is actually usable, though again, not like a dslr. You just have to master the controls, and your subject can't be too flighty.
8. Given that acceptable images can be had, the convenience factor can't be overstated. I can add this thing to my field kit without adding any recognizable weight or inconvenience; I recommend the case that came with my second version. Once you get the hang of the controls, it'll be hard to beat as a record shot camera.
That's all I can think of at the moment; if you want some specific info, let me know.
cheers,
randy
OK, I've now had two of these cameras (lost one to a pickpocket or my own absentmindedness 2 days into my trip to Singapore), and here are my thoughts.
1. The autofocus is quite good and quite fast. The only negative is that it plays up from time to time and simply won't function properly, and this problem doesn't seem to be confined to very low-light shots. Luckily though, it does this pretty rarely.
2. Once you learn the controls (much like any other camera), it's quite easy to use and it's quite easy to get good shots in difficult circumstances.
3. The electronic viewfinder is quite useable, but obviously not in the same league as a dslr.
4. Exposure by spot-metering seems to do a fine job in most circumstances. Bracketing is easy to set and use.
5. The 12 frame/sec burst works and works well! I have not made extensive use of the 5.5 frames/sec burst with autofocus, but will assess that in future.
6. Image quality. A mixed bag; really good in bright light, sometimes not so good in low light situations. Much of the time the problem lies with trying to handhold the camera at slow shutter speeds in low light, but it's possible that the image comes out somewhat soft in low light even if the camera is steady. I'll follow up on this later. But if you have good light, you can achieve really nice quality images. At 12MP, you can't crop as far as some might like (a problem which may be exacerbated by the small sensor), but if you can use field craft to construct the image as you'd like it without the need to do much cropping, you can get very good results. Examples attached.
7. Unlike some folks here, I find the manual focus is actually usable, though again, not like a dslr. You just have to master the controls, and your subject can't be too flighty.
8. Given that acceptable images can be had, the convenience factor can't be overstated. I can add this thing to my field kit without adding any recognizable weight or inconvenience; I recommend the case that came with my second version. Once you get the hang of the controls, it'll be hard to beat as a record shot camera.
That's all I can think of at the moment; if you want some specific info, let me know.
cheers,
randy
Attachments
1 month with the FZ-200
OK, I've now had two of these cameras (lost one to a pickpocket or my own absentmindedness 2 days into my trip to Singapore), and here are my thoughts.
1. The autofocus is quite good and quite fast. The only negative is that it plays up from time to time and simply won't function properly, and this problem doesn't seem to be confined to very low-light shots. Luckily though, it does this pretty rarely and is usually pretty quickly fixed by focusing on something nearby your subject.
2. Once you learn the controls (much like any other camera), it's quite easy to use and it's quite easy to get good shots in difficult circumstances.
3. The electronic viewfinder is quite useable, but obviously not in the same league as a dslr.
4. Exposure by spot-metering seems to do a fine job in most circumstances. Bracketing is easy to set and use.
5. The 12 frame/sec burst works and works well! I have not made extensive use of the 5.5 frames/sec burst with autofocus, but will assess that in future.
6. Image quality. A mixed bag; really good in bright light, sometimes not so good in low light situations. Much of the time the problem lies with trying to handhold the camera at slow shutter speeds in low light, but it's possible that the image comes out somewhat soft in low light even if the camera is steady. I'll follow up on this later. But if you have good light, you can achieve really nice quality images. At 12MP, you can't crop as far as some might like (a problem which may be exacerbated by the small sensor), but if you can use field craft to construct the image as you'd like it without the need to do much cropping, you can get very good results. Examples attached.
7. Unlike some folks here, I find the manual focus is actually usable, though again, not like a dslr. You just have to master the controls, and your subject can't be too flighty.
8. Given that acceptable images can be had, the convenience factor can't be overstated. I can add this thing to my field kit without adding any recognizable weight or inconvenience; I recommend the case that came with my second version. Once you get the hang of the controls, it'll be hard to beat as a record shot camera.
That's all I can think of at the moment; if you want some specific info, let me know.
cheers,
randy
OK, I've now had two of these cameras (lost one to a pickpocket or my own absentmindedness 2 days into my trip to Singapore), and here are my thoughts.
1. The autofocus is quite good and quite fast. The only negative is that it plays up from time to time and simply won't function properly, and this problem doesn't seem to be confined to very low-light shots. Luckily though, it does this pretty rarely and is usually pretty quickly fixed by focusing on something nearby your subject.
2. Once you learn the controls (much like any other camera), it's quite easy to use and it's quite easy to get good shots in difficult circumstances.
3. The electronic viewfinder is quite useable, but obviously not in the same league as a dslr.
4. Exposure by spot-metering seems to do a fine job in most circumstances. Bracketing is easy to set and use.
5. The 12 frame/sec burst works and works well! I have not made extensive use of the 5.5 frames/sec burst with autofocus, but will assess that in future.
6. Image quality. A mixed bag; really good in bright light, sometimes not so good in low light situations. Much of the time the problem lies with trying to handhold the camera at slow shutter speeds in low light, but it's possible that the image comes out somewhat soft in low light even if the camera is steady. I'll follow up on this later. But if you have good light, you can achieve really nice quality images. At 12MP, you can't crop as far as some might like (a problem which may be exacerbated by the small sensor), but if you can use field craft to construct the image as you'd like it without the need to do much cropping, you can get very good results. Examples attached.
7. Unlike some folks here, I find the manual focus is actually usable, though again, not like a dslr. You just have to master the controls, and your subject can't be too flighty.
8. Given that acceptable images can be had, the convenience factor can't be overstated. I can add this thing to my field kit without adding any recognizable weight or inconvenience; I recommend the case that came with my second version. Once you get the hang of the controls, it'll be hard to beat as a record shot camera.
That's all I can think of at the moment; if you want some specific info, let me know.
cheers,
randy
Attachments
Last edited:
And a few more pics
The woodswallow picture (the one with 3 birds, one with a spread wing) is a good example of the softness to be found in low light pics. Whether due to camera shake or sensor issues, I'm not sure.
The woodswallow picture (the one with 3 birds, one with a spread wing) is a good example of the softness to be found in low light pics. Whether due to camera shake or sensor issues, I'm not sure.
Attachments
scodgerott
Well-known member
Thanks for all your info on the FZ200. I have had mine for about 3 weeks now and have come to pretty much the same conclusions as you. The focus can be lightning fast, but sometimes it just won't focus at all on things you think would be a cinche for it, ie good light, bright subject etc. I am using video quite a bit, as we are on a trip, but the results from both the video and stills are outstanding.
dave-g2011
Well-known member
There is a learning curve with this camera. Overall its very good in reasanable light. I now have it a couple of months and find im using it more often. Im using Ap priorty nearly all the time
scodgerott
Well-known member
David, the results your posting here look pretty good to me.
Regards
Rodger
Regards
Rodger
Similar threads
