Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
26000.00 in India........
01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
I've had this camera for about a year and am very dissapointed. Poor image
quality and sensor is slow!
<bijuvk1973@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5d07a1e-f9dc-4941-8746-fd3929878d09@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear All
>
> Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
> 26000.00 in India........
> 01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
> 02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
> 03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
>
> Dear All
>
> Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
> 26000.00 in India........
> 01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
It's a high-end point-n-shoot with a small sensor and more pixels
than it needs. Like all small-sensor cameras, it will do poorly in
low-light situations. On the other hand, it's loaded with nice
features. The 12x zoom is of above average optical quality. There
are zoom and focus rings on the lens. It's got nearly the manual
control of an SLR. Just don't expect to get 10 usable megapixels
out of it or try to shoot action shots indoors.
> 02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
It depends on what you mean by "better". An entry-level DSLR with
a third-party zoom would get better image quality, but at a somewhat
higher price. Some of the Fuji sensors have better noise
characteristics, but you can't get image stabilization with them.
Lots of cameras are smaller and lighter than the FZ50.
> 03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
Not sure what you mean by "capacity". If you can find an FZ30,
it's a similar camera with slightly better noise characteristics
and will cost less than the newer FZ50. I have one. For what it
is, I like it a lot. It is disappointing in low light and the
images are generally on the soft side. But, it handles nicely
and I don't have to lug around an SLR. (Actually, it weighs
about as much as my old OM2n with a 50mm lens, and is about the
same size.
bijuvk1973@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
> 26000.00 in India........
> 01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
> 02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
> 03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
Best of the "bridge" cameras by a long way.
See the Panasonic Talk Forum at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033 and ignore the idiot
who says it has "poor image quality". I have won far more photo competitions
with my FZ50 than with my Nikon D70s DSLR.
Guys who blame their cameras for poor image quality these days need to take
a good long look at their technique.
<bijuvk1973@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5d07a1e-f9dc-4941-8746-fd3929878d09@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear All
>
> Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
> 26000.00 in India........
> 01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
> 02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
> 03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
>
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:02:31 GMT, "Dennis Pogson"
<dennis_nospampogson@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>bijuvk1973@gmail.com wrote:
>> Dear All
>>
>> Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
>> 26000.00 in India........
>> 01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
>> 02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
>> 03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
>
>Best of the "bridge" cameras by a long way.
>
>See the Panasonic Talk Forum at
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033 and ignore the idiot
>who says it has "poor image quality". I have won far more photo competitions
>with my FZ50 than with my Nikon D70s DSLR.
>
>Guys who blame their cameras for poor image quality these days need to take
>a good long look at their technique.
>
>DP
>
Sometimes I suspect most of the problem with super-zoom P&S cameras is that they
don't realize what they are holding in their hands. Not long ago nobody would
even think about putting a 200mm lens on their 35mm camera and trying to do
hand-held shots with it, no matter the shutter speed. Today they get an instant
400mm or more at the twist of a zoom ring or press of a zoom toggle-switch.
Luckily many of them have IS to /help/, but by no means will that solve the
issue at hand (pardon the pun). Just because your camera far exceeds the
capabilities of any cameras in the past, it doesn't mean it's going to make up
for being a bad photographer. All the basics still apply but even more so now.
Know how long of a focal-length you can hold steady. Know basic exposure
settings and what they all mean, etc. Get the basics out of the way then pick up
that camera again. You'll be surprised to find out the drawbacks were in you not
in the camera.
How often they say it focuses slow at long zoom settings without even realizing
why. Their own shaky hand is causing that. If the image isn't still enough the
electronics can't latch onto any details to focus on. I can use 430+mm focal
lengths on mine in very dim lighting, the auto-focus still works just as fast as
in daylight. Was I bestowed with a magic camera that goes against all odds and
beats all the test reports printed online of that particular model? No, not at
all. It means that I know how to use a camera better than those publishing their
tests. I also know how these cameras work so as to optimize their capabilities.
How many of you can safely say that you are a better photographer than those
that publish test reports online, and can prove it? I can. I only need to
personally test their published speed ratings of auto-focus speeds at long-zoom
settings. If I consistently get better results, by far, then I instantly know
that the test-results writer is another wanking idiot trying to pretend to be a
photographer. Or more likely, has a money-making agenda off of some other brand
or design. Once I know that I can beat their focus-speed tests then rest of
their test results are also to be taken with a grain of salt.
<bijuvk1973@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5d07a1e-f9dc-4941-8746-fd3929878d09@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear All
>
> Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
> 26000.00 in India........
> 01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
> 02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
> 03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
If you want to make some snapshots, itīs OK, but just that. Not any better
than a smaller pocket size camera.
If you want to make more advanced pictures, like macro: forget it!
It bleeds colors, especially red. I made a few hunderd pictures with it, but
I returned it.
Also the promised 1/4000 sec shutter speed is a lie: it only works with an
aperture lower than F8 and only at a part of the zoom lens. Then it drops to
1/2000.
Also the dynamic range is very poor; washed out skies and other whites.
Donīt dream about a wedding picture!
Get a Nikon D40 or, if you can afford it, a D40x. Costs almost the same, but
the quality is x factor better and you can expend when you want.
Slam a AF Nikkor F1.8 on it and you wonīt believe how sharp and crisp your
pics will be. Only for a few dollars.
The Canon 400D is also a good buy, but it lacks a few things you might want,
like spot metering and the Nikon CLS (wireless flash system).
--
"I donīt need a camera,
I have a photographic memory..."
Sosumi
<bijuvk1973@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5d07a1e-f9dc-4941-8746-fd3929878d09@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear All
>
> Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
> 26000.00 in India........
> 01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
> 02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
> 03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
>
Another camera you may want to look at is the Pentax K10D.
It has severasl advanced features:
1) sensor dust removal
2) In-body advanced image stabilization
3) Weather seals
AND: has better RAW image quality than the new Canon EOS 40D which costs
double at $1300.00
Note the image comparison of the RAW converted images between the Pentax
K10D and the Canon EOS 40D. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page26.asp
"Sosumi" <sosumi@home.nl> wrote in message
news:TOadnW3TcKGlttnanZ2dnUVZ8qWhnZ2d@novis.pt...
>
> <bijuvk1973@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d5d07a1e-f9dc-4941-8746-fd3929878d09@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear All
>>
>> Now I am rounded up in a camera "Panasonic Lumix FZ50", which cost Rs.
>> 26000.00 in India........
>> 01. Can any one suggest the performance of this camera??
>> 02. Shall I go for any other model / Brand better than this??
>> 03. Is there any camera with similar capacity and lesser cost??
>
>
> If you want to make some snapshots, itīs OK, but just that. Not any better
> than a smaller pocket size camera.
> If you want to make more advanced pictures, like macro: forget it!
> It bleeds colors, especially red. I made a few hunderd pictures with it,
> but I returned it.
> Also the promised 1/4000 sec shutter speed is a lie: it only works with an
> aperture lower than F8 and only at a part of the zoom lens. Then it drops
> to 1/2000.
> Also the dynamic range is very poor; washed out skies and other whites.
> Donīt dream about a wedding picture!
> Get a Nikon D40 or, if you can afford it, a D40x. Costs almost the same,
> but the quality is x factor better and you can expend when you want.
> Slam a AF Nikkor F1.8 on it and you wonīt believe how sharp and crisp your
> pics will be. Only for a few dollars.
> The Canon 400D is also a good buy, but it lacks a few things you might
> want, like spot metering and the Nikon CLS (wireless flash system).
>
>
> --
> "I donīt need a camera,
> I have a photographic memory..."
> Sosumi
The D40X looks like one of the better choices out there. My cousin has had a
D80 for about a year, and she is
strongly recommending I get the D40X .
>
>
>The D40X looks like one of the better choices out there. My cousin has had a
>D80 for about a year, and she is
>strongly recommending I get the D40X .
Note that Nikon has used different methods to focus their autofocus
lenses over the years, and the D40X doesn't contain the mechanisms
needed to focus many older Nikon lenses. If you have access to older
Nikon gear, this may prove to be a problem.
But if you're starting from scratch, buying new lenses to go with the
camera, this is not something you should need to worry about much.
Buying A Camera 
Linear Mode
