Panasonic digital cameras

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:37:20 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>> The Lumix is a very interesting choice with it offering one of the few
>> companies sporting a 28mm wide angle and Leica lenses.
>
>Yes, this is true. If you want a smaller P&S with a 28mm lens your
>choices are very limited. If you want a small P&S with 28mm at the wide
>end of a zoom lens, image stabilization, and an optical viewfinder, your
>choices are only one Canon model. Fortunately for the camera
>manufacturers, apparently very few P&S camera buyers understand the
>value of a wider angle lens, and instead get carried away with the
>telephoto side of the zoom (after all, big numbers are better than small
>numbers!).
>
>> The field now is very wide and makes the choice of camera even more
>> difficult.

I've been fairly happy with my TZ1 though seeing the features in the
TZ2 and TZ3 it makes me wonder if I should have waited. Still - having
toasted my old Minolta in a sudden rainstorm and being without a
camera at all for more than a month it seemed like a good idea at the
time.

<aniramca@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185855650.133317.194560@g4g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
>I spent my past times visiting camera shops and electronic stores, and
> look, feel and try various cameras. When I tried to shoot any
> pictures, and check the LCD screen... I found that Panasonic cameras
> appear to have the colour and sharpness that I like. am I biased
> toward this particular brand? I am not just talking about the high end
> Panasonic cameras... but also the cheapest models. They seems to
> produce sharp, colour contrasting images. Tried the FZ8, the LZ2 and
> I usually said to myself... WOW!. However, when I checked the image
> quality rating from camera reviews, Panasonic is not superior from the
> other famous brand names. So, what's happening here? Is it just a
> perception here?

Maybe the Panasonics just have better LCD screens on the back. You can't
judge image quality from this! its just a low res viewfinder. You need to
download the full resolution images and view them on a decent monitor
(preferably colour balanced). Most review sites show sample photos for
comparison.

Z

Zimmy wrote:
[]
> Maybe the Panasonics just have better LCD screens on the back. You
> can't judge image quality from this! its just a low res viewfinder.
> You need to download the full resolution images and view them on a
> decent monitor (preferably colour balanced). Most review sites show
> sample photos for comparison.
>
> Z

... but be careful if you examine the images at 1:1 zoom. On a typical
monitor, this corresponds to a much greater print size than you would
normally use, and image defects may be much more prominent than they are
in actual use.

David

ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

I also thought that the
> Ricoh described was the GR Digital. Is the GX100 the same or a
> different camera? Anybody? (if SMS replies at all it will likely
> be through his alter ego).

It's different, the GR has a fixed 28mm lens with only digital zoom, making
it rather poor value I think even though it's said to be a very good
camera. The idea of only being able to get to 105mm by using 4x digital
zoom is really a non-starter IMHO.

The GX100 is a much better idea with its 24-72mm lens. When you consider
that DSLR kit lenses usually only go down to 28mm, and that the cost of
buying a super-wide zoom for them may double the price of the outfit, the
GX100 begins to look pretty attractive for anyone doing wideangle work, the
only drawbacks being the sensor size and the rather modest telephoto end.

On 02 Aug 2007 14:56:44 GMT, Gordon Freeman wrote:

>> I also thought that the
>> Ricoh described was the GR Digital. Is the GX100 the same or a
>> different camera? Anybody?
> . . .
>
> It's different, the GR has a fixed 28mm lens with only digital zoom, making
> it rather poor value I think even though it's said to be a very good
> camera. The idea of only being able to get to 105mm by using 4x digital
> zoom is really a non-starter IMHO.

Thanks for the followup. I guess it would be a poor value even if
it wasn't, IIRC, so expensive.