Panasonic FZ-200 (3 Viewers)

[Jock Elliott]

I have had both the FZ150 and the FZ200. While I don't think there's much between them image quality wise, the FZ200 has it over the FZ150 in a number of other areas. The most obvious one is the viewfinder 1.3 million pixels compared to 200,000. The most important feature is the F2.8 lens. That makes a huge difference in the way you can use the camera, compared to the FZ150. The FZ200 also feels faster, there seems to be less shutter lag. It may be just that the shutter button has less movement in it, but its firmness feels like its faster. There are numerous other improvements, like better custom and function button settings. Much better high speed video and the video doesn't black out when you press the red button. Overall its a much better camera, but you will pick up a FZ150 for a lower price than the FZ200. Whatever you decide you will have a great little camera.

I concur.

Cheers, Jock

 

[timmyjones]

Robert,

I like both the FZ150 and the FZ200 (that's why I kept them both).

If I were in your shoes, I would go for the FZ200. The constant f/2.8 aperture is very nice, and both the EVF and rear panel display are nicer than on the FZ150.

Here in the states, the prices are pretty good, too.

BTW, both these cameras work well with DXO Optics Pro 9 processing software.

I put a protective filter on the lens and a screen protector on the rear and carry it in a padded binocular case when I am not shooting.

I am a fulltime freelance writer and I have actually used these cameras professionally to illustrate my stories. If you follow the link in this post -- http://www.seriouscompacts.com/showthread.php?t=22814&p=151464#post151464 -- you can see some of my stuff.

Cheers, Jock

Hi Jock,

What size protective filter do you put on your 200?

Cheers

 

[Jock Elliott]

Hi Jock,

What size protective filter do you put on your 200?

Cheers

Tim,

52mm.

Cheers, Jock

 

[Swissboy]

I have had both the FZ150 and the FZ200. While I don't think there's much between them image quality wise, the FZ200 has it over the FZ150 in a number of other areas. The most obvious one is the viewfinder 1.3 million pixels compared to 200,000. The most important feature is the F2.8 lens. ............

Robert,

I like both the FZ150 and the FZ200 (that's why I kept them both).

If I were in your shoes, I would go for the FZ200. The constant f/2.8 aperture is very nice, and both the EVF and rear panel display are nicer than on the FZ150.

.............

Thanks fellows, I think the FZ200 must be the way to go, then. It's still a bit higher priced here. If I can wait till November/December, my son could bring it over from the US though. Will have to see how long my FZ150 funcions flawlessly. And who knows, maybe Panasonic issues a newer camera in October. :-O

 

[JoeRawles]

Here's a female Sparrowhawk on a Green Woodpecker I took yesterday on the way to work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdrphotography/12987215564/

The FZ200 is hugely advantageous over the 150 because of the 2.8 aperture. Though with the smaller sensor compared to a DSLR it's obviously not a 'real' 2.8, it does gather significantly more light than you'd get at 5.6, which in turn keeps the ISO lower and the overall IQ higher, giving a more pleasing DOF as you can see from the Sparrowhawk pic.

 

[Simon07]

Is anyone using this camera with a Raynox DCR-250 macro adapter and if so could I see some results please?

Regards,
Andrew.

Only used mine a couple of times last summer (I'm no expert) but it was great fun. You may also want to consider the Raynox DCR-150

 

[Simon07]

Here are some of my favorites from last year. These were taken with either a Nikon or Sony TC, and a red dot sight for the BIF shots

 

[scodgerott]

All excellent shots, both the macros and the birds. Like you, I use a red dot sight for birds in flight on my FZ200 and occasionally use a TCON-17 teleconverter, but find that generally its easier and quicker to use the extended optical zoom, without much difference in quality, although the TCON-17 isn't the best TC out there. I do have a Canon 500d close-up lens and like the TC, only use it occasionally, but it does give great results.

I am pleased to see your images, as they show how good the FZ200 can be.

 

[Swissboy]

red dot sight?

.......... Like you, I use a red dot sight for birds in flight on my FZ200 ................

How does such a device work with cameras, and who makes a model that fits the camera? Simply never heard of this before it was mentioned here.

I had always linked this technique with guns so far.

 

[njlarsen]

The recently announced olympus stylus superzoom even has one built in ... http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/29/olympus-announces-stylus-sp-100-superzoom-with-dot-sight

Niels

 

[scodgerott]

The red dot sights were and still are, used for hunting with guns. Niels' post will show you what an in-built sight looks like on the new Olympus SP100 camera. You can view a good image of another portable site at this site http://gadget.brando.com/wildlife-photography-with-tactical-four-reticle-sight_p01341c073d003.html

 

[Biancone]

Here are some of my favorites from last year. These were taken with either a Nikon or Sony TC, and a red dot sight for the BIF shots

Very impressive images. Were the BIF shots of wild birds in a natural situation? Might have to invest in a tcon and dot sight if the answer is 'Yes'! I use an FZ200 but relatively few images creep up into the 'just about acceptable' grade.
Brian

 

[scodgerott]

Not sure why you aren't getting acceptable images. I would need more info from you to be in a position as to what's actually wrong with them. Perhaps you should post a few, so that I and others may be able to offer you some suggestions. Below are three images, one taken with a red dot sight, one just from the camera and one taken with the Canon 500d close-up lens. I would post one from the camera with the teleconverter on, but I'm not 100% sure on which images I've used it. Most times I don't use it at all, preferring to use the extended optical zoom.

 

[Swissboy]

The red dot sights were and still are, used for hunting with guns. Niels' post will show you what an in-built sight looks like on the new Olympus SP100 camera. You can view a good image of another portable site at this site http://gadget.brando.com/wildlife-photography-with-tactical-four-reticle-sight_p01341c073d003.html

Thanks for this link. Looks like I need one of these tools too! Your samples sure are convincing.

 

[alidea]

where can I find an FZ200?

After humming and harring over which camera to get finally decided on the FZ200 only to find it's not available in the shops near me. Don't want to get one off the internet as read previous posts bout US version.Can anyone help, I live in County Durham. :C

 

[stanacko]

fz200

After humming and harring over which camera to get finally decided on the FZ200 only to find it's not available in the shops near me. Don't want to get one off the internet as read previous posts bout US version.Can anyone help, I live in County Durham. :C

Hi
Have you tried Mifsuds a good reliable place.

 

[alidea]

Hi
Have you tried Mifsuds a good reliable place.

No, never heard of it. Many thanks I'll Google

 

[Borjam]

I just bought the FZ200 yesterday.

The mains strengths for me are raw support and the 2.8 aperture for the full zoom range. If weather gets better I will try to get some shots at my local patch.

Downsides: I learned photography 30 years ago with film (even medium format) and B&W and I would really appreciate one function manual controls for focus, diaphragm, shutter… Although manual focus for an extreme telephoto with the depth of field of a 2.8 is indeed a tall order

My other digital camera is a Lumix LX2 and I really like it despite its "digitalitis" (it was the first affordable digital camera I considered worth buying, go figure!) so I already have a bias towards Lumix.

I'll hopefully post some photos soon.

Meanwhile, I would respectfully ask the two posters who got defective units to add a note to the scary posts with images showing serious problems. They almost scared me off! Fortunately I checked the whole thread.

 

[Borjam]

A sample shot. No noise reduction and no processing. Just straight from raw to JPEG with Aperture.

There's some color fringing around the seagulls heads but it can be corrected quite well, and that's the optical zoom to the maximum. I would say the camera is amazing for the price and convenience.

And part of the problem in this photo is because I shot at maximum aperture of course. I was just trying.

 

[scodgerott]

A sample shot. No noise reduction and no processing. Just straight from raw to JPEG with Aperture.

There's some color fringing around the seagulls heads but it can be corrected quite well, and that's the optical zoom to the maximum. I would say the camera is amazing for the price and convenience.

And part of the problem in this photo is because I shot at maximum aperture of course. I was just trying.

The shot looks pretty good to me. Apparently the F2.8 setting doesn't give the absolute best image quality, but from what I've seen, you have to look hard to tell the difference. I always shoot jpeg, but I know RAW allows you a greater latitude with post processing. As you practice with the camera, you'll become more familiar with its various settings and you'll get better images, especially in adverse lighting conditions.