DMC-FZ35 gets (mainly) good review

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:33:06 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <c166f5dn9dqfhk031kcrtcjagbp637cu82@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >"One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its battery life is
>> >weak. All superzooms consume more power than average point-and-shoot
>> >cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed especially brief.
>>
>> It may have been a defective battery
>
>always an excuse.
>
>> -- my DMC-FZ28 is very similar
>> right down to the same battery, and I've yet to run out of power in a
>> day of shooting, even with heavy use of flash.
>
>then you don't shoot much not to mention that it's a different camera
>with different power demands. panasonic claims 470 shots for the fz35
>which i consider to be 'especially brief.' real world shooting is
>probably less.

Sigh ... the troll who depends on what he reads online rather than relying
1s-hand experience with any equipment at all. Nothing more needs be said.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:42:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

>
>"mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:hcvdel$6j2$2@news.albasani.net...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:051120091333064335%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>>>>
>>>> panasonic claims 470 shots for the fz35
>>>> which i consider to be 'especially brief.' real world shooting is
>>>> probably less.
>>>
>>> And, that rating will be for shooting without flash or active rear
>>> display. With heavy flash usage, half the rating. Add in the
>>> display, and you're probably down to just over a hundred shots, if
>>> that.
>> They do say in the press release that those 470 shots are according to
>> CIPA standard. IIRC, that's with flash on every alternate shot, 10 seconds
>> ON period for each shot and one full extension and retraction of the lens
>> for each shot (I assume this is not counting lens movements at power
>> on/off). These are vague recollections of the CIPA specs, so please
>> correct me if I got something wrong.
>>
>
>I'm not sure how the CIPA standards are determined / implemented. But, I'm
>guessing that the flash output is not full discharge each time.
>

Nor will they compare which batteries they use. Which vary widely from OEM
to OEM. Poor testing methods results in garbage in = garbage out.


>Just going by my own experience using cams in low-light, I have yet to use
>one which achieves the stated number of shots.
>
>I do much / most of my work in low-light, and the flash often is at or near
>full output. Add in the rear display and I'm lucky to actually fire 1/4 of
>the CIPA guesstimation. Granted, I tend to take longer framing each shot
>than most photographers, but I still get a chuckle whenever I read the specs
>on new cams...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>
>

"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:Q%DIm.51602$PH1.33535@edtnps82...
> "One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its battery life is
> weak. All superzooms consume more power than average point-and-shoot
> cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed especially brief.

I think most user reviews indicate pretty good battery life on the FZ35. I
hope that's right, because I just ordered one yesterday. Based on user
reviews, it looks to me like the best of the new superzooms.

I've had an FZ15 for quite a while, and like it better than other superzooms
in my experience. The Leica lens is really something, and (unusual for this
type of camera) on the FZ15 its max aperture is f/2.8 *all the way*. That is
really nice.

Truth in Testing wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:42:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:hcvdel$6j2$2@news.albasani.net...
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:051120091333064335%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>>>>>
>>>>> panasonic claims 470 shots for the fz35
>>>>> which i consider to be 'especially brief.' real world
>>>>> shooting is
>>>>> probably less.
>>>>
>>>> And, that rating will be for shooting without flash or
>>>> active rear
>>>> display. With heavy flash usage, half the rating. Add in
>>>> the
>>>> display, and you're probably down to just over a hundred
>>>> shots, if
>>>> that.
>>> They do say in the press release that those 470 shots are
>>> according
>>> to CIPA standard. IIRC, that's with flash on every alternate
>>> shot,
>>> 10 seconds ON period for each shot and one full extension and
>>> retraction of the lens for each shot (I assume this is not
>>> counting
>>> lens movements at power on/off). These are vague
>>> recollections of
>>> the CIPA specs, so please correct me if I got something
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how the CIPA standards are determined /
>> implemented.
>> But, I'm guessing that the flash output is not full discharge
>> each
>> time.
>>
>
> Nor will they compare which batteries they use. Which vary
> widely
> from OEM to OEM. Poor testing methods results in garbage in =
> garbage
> out.
>
I'd think that the question of brand doesn't arise with
proprietary batteries. And there has to be *some* standard for
testing to be able to provide a technical specification. The
alternative would be a test result published with something like
"under normal shooting conditions" which will be so vague and so
variable as to be even more meaningless - for publication on a
specs sheet.

For real world trials, well, that's what independent reviewers
are for. But the results would hardly be precise enough to
qualify for inclusion on a specs sheet.

If we suspect or can prove that the manufacturer lied about the
test results, that's a different matter.

Even with cameras using AA batteries, a test would have to be run
with a popular brand while assuming that it has approximately the
stated capacity. Otherwise, the particular batteries used would
also have to be tested outside the camera and the shot capacity
statement would have to be accompanied by something like "This
camera was tested with battery model X, production batch Y and
serial #Z, which was tested to have xx% of the nominal mAh
capacity"

Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> I've had an FZ15 for quite a while, and like it better than
> other
> superzooms in my experience. The Leica lens is really
> something, and
> (unusual for this type of camera) on the FZ15 its max aperture
> is
> f/2.8 *all the way*. That is really nice.

After keeping an FZ20 and an FZ30 together for quite some time, I
had a chance to sell either of them for a good price last year.
It was tough deciding which one to keep. I like the fast turn-on,
ring zoom, swivel LCD, etc of the FZ30, but I also preferred the
constant f/2.8 and overall out-of the-box image quality of the
FZ20. In the end, I reluctantly chose to sell the FZ20. I really
miss the constant f/2.8.

"mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hd0kt2$u2s$1@news.albasani.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>> I've had an FZ15 for quite a while, and like it better than other
>> superzooms in my experience. The Leica lens is really something, and
>> (unusual for this type of camera) on the FZ15 its max aperture is
>> f/2.8 *all the way*. That is really nice.
>
> After keeping an FZ20 and an FZ30 together for quite some time, I had a
> chance to sell either of them for a good price last year. It was tough
> deciding which one to keep. I like the fast turn-on, ring zoom, swivel
> LCD, etc of the FZ30, but I also preferred the constant f/2.8 and overall
> out-of the-box image quality of the FZ20. In the end, I reluctantly chose
> to sell the FZ20. I really miss the constant f/2.8.

The FZ30 is impressive, and the FZ50 too, of course. I've been following
FZ50s from time to time on eBay, in hopes of getting a really nice one at a
bargain price. Alas, there are seldom if ever any real bargains on eBay;
it's too efficient a market. FZ50s in excellent to mint condition seem to go
for $350 to $400 or more, probably a fair enough price. I don't know what
they last sold for new but I assume it was well above that.

I'm wondering if Panasonic will produce a successor to the FZ30/FZ50.