Panasonic DMC-FX9 - Excellent! (1 Viewer)

Hi all,

I have made some side-by-side tests with the new Panasonic and my aging CP4500 and I have to say that I'm very impressed with the 6Mpix FX9. Yes, it is only a pocket-size, all-automatic point-and-shoot camera, but it does perform very well in digiscoping (inside a store ).

+ It has optical image-stabilization, which WORKS even with the scope. It corresponds at least 2 stops - probably more. Godsend to handhold-digiscopers.
+ It has a VERY short shutter-lag.
+ It focuses rapidly and accurately.
+ It has a very good battery life.

Of course there are some shortcomings, but all the above mentioned are so important that I am willing to forgive some manual controls and sensor noise at high ISOs.

I will post some nice pictures of wood panels tomorrow... :'D

Regards,

Ilkka

I knew that OIS would be useful for digiscoping!



I look forward to the details, Ilkka.

iporali said:

Hi all,

I have made some side-by-side tests with the new Panasonic and my aging CP4500 and I have to say that I'm very impressed with the 6Mpix FX9. Yes, it is only a pocket-size, all-automatic point-and-shoot camera, but it does perform very well in digiscoping (inside a store ).

+ It has optical image-stabilization, which WORKS even with the scope. It corresponds at least 2 stops - probably more. Godsend to handhold-digiscopers.
+ It has a VERY short shutter-lag.
+ It focuses rapidly and accurately.
+ It has a very good battery life.

Of course there are some shortcomings, but all the above mentioned are so important that I am willing to forgive some manual controls and sensor noise at high ISOs.

I will post some nice pictures of wood panels tomorrow... :'D

Regards,

Ilkka

Click to expand...

And a good price, too, Ilkka - one to look out for. Send those shots in!

scampo said:

Send those shots in!

Click to expand...

Here we go...

Some days ago I had a chance to test the Panasonic with my Nikon in a local, friendly electronics store. I brought my digiscoping gear (Swaro AT80HD, Baader adapter, Manfrotto 055 tripod and the 501 head) with me in the store and took some pictures of the ... er... wall. I just wanted to see if I could better utilize the wider field-of-view of the 20xSW with the Panasonic - and to my deep pleasure - it looks like I can. Diffuse vignetting has always been very annoying with the CP4500 and it actually produces narrower usable fov with the wide-angle than with the zoom at 20x. As you see in the "zoom" comparison the edges of the image "ring" are always sharp with the FX9, which means that it does not actually vignette, it records the whole (narrow) field-of-view of the zoom. Oh yes, the Baader adapter does not go up enough for such a small camera - I had to put some cardboard on the platform.

Unfortunately in my comparisons I couldn't zoom to exactly same focal lengths with both cameras - and with the FX9 I even run into digital zoom range without noticing it (133 mm in the zoom series). I also didn't have time (well... I forgot) to fix the white balance - it was all the time at "auto", which should explain those horrible colours. I hope you get the point anyway.

In my previous post I forgot to praise the 2.5" and 200kpix display, which is from a different planet than the stamp-sized display on the CP4500 - but that is easy to see in the images. What you don't see in these images, was that the Nikon often missed the focus in such low light (and had to be corrected manually), whereas the Panasonic always found the correct focus - and very fast. I tried to take some hand-held pictures with both cameras and with the the FX9 (and O.I.S) I was able to get some relatively sharp images at 1/8 s exposure times (!). With the Nikon it was just hopeless blur - the test images are taken with the self timer.

OK, I hope you find something useful from this "test". It could even be worthwile to test the Panasonic DMC-FX9 on real birds too .

Regards,

Ilkka

Very interesting. Did you check by any chance if you are able to see the Image on the LCD from .. odd angles ? Some of the new LCD screens allows you to do that and this eliminates the need of a rotating screen (to some extend).

Also, what about ISO ? did you check the capability of the camera in high ISOs ?

Thanks for the effort.

Thanks for these Ilkka

That is a neet little camera. Is it my eyes or do the FX9 photos look sharper?

Have you found your new camera in the FX9?

It is always better to see results for your self thanks for taking the time for this.

Paul

RedBishop said:

Did you check by any chance if you are able to see the Image on the LCD from .. odd angles ? Some of the new LCD screens allows you to do that and this eliminates the need of a rotating screen (to some extend).

Also, what about ISO ? did you check the capability of the camera in high ISOs ?

Click to expand...

I didn't try the limits of the viewing angle, but in the artificial indoor light it was both bright and easy to view from different angles. The second attachment also shows that the screen is usable at about 45° angle. I don't know how well the display performs in bright daylight, but I believe it is better than the CP4500's.

This camera has been criticized for its noisiness and noise reduction behaviour. I think dpreview.com said that already at ISO160 the image loses details. In my tests the camera had at first automatic ISO setting on and I can say that at high ISOs the image quality didn't look very good (didn't save any examples). Fortunately the image stabilization reduces the need for high ISOs.

Ilkka

iporali said:

I didn't try the limits of the viewing angle, but in the artificial indoor light it was both bright and easy to view from different angles. The second attachment also shows that the screen is usable at about 45° angle. I don't know how well the display performs in bright daylight, but I believe it is better than the CP4500's.

This camera has been criticized for its noisiness and noise reduction behaviour. I think dpreview.com said that already at ISO160 the image loses details. In my tests the camera had at first automatic ISO setting on and I can say that at high ISOs the image quality didn't look very good (didn't save any examples). Fortunately the image stabilization reduces the need for high ISOs.

Ilkka

Click to expand...

Seems to me you've found a winner. The size of the screen itself is surely very useful in focusing and more generally comfortable to use; also, the fact that auto-focus works so well and finally the speed of response.

Paul Jarvis said:

Is it my eyes or do the FX9 photos look sharper?

Click to expand...

Yes they do - in these examples the FX9 photos are generally sharper due to more accurate low-light autofocus - but I didn't really try to maximize sharpness (the photos were shot at 2 Mpix).

Have you found your new camera in the FX9?

Click to expand...

Maybe - actually the decisive factors may turn out to be a couple of "non-digiscoping" purposes where the CP4500 falls short:
1) photographing childrens play
2) focusing with flash (the FX9 has an assist light)


Yes, it is indeed a very nice little camera for someone who does not insist manual controls and tube adapters (there are no filter threads or bayonets whatsoever).

Thanks for your interest,

Ilkka