Panasonic FZ3 awesome 12x leica lens

chappy

I'm just on the verge of buying this one, Fuji s5500, all the reviews seem very good and it's the cheapest price i have found, 4 mp, 10x opt

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=99296

Any thoughts anyone

Cheers
Jayne

alric

I know 12x is a lot for a digital camera, but I like a 24mm for landscape, 24x12=288, and 300mm is not enough really for wildlife, espacially birds

rizla01

Anyone thinking of purchasing a camera might find this Comparison Site of some use.
Try it.

I did and it told me that among others the FZ3 was one of the ones that suited my requirements.

I think this camera has nearly everything and more but I still think that the low grade Movie mode is a shame as is the battery requirements. Batteries I could live with but the movie mode?? But that is a sacrifice for the other HUGE features contained here-in.

I, for one, am very close to placing an order.

The resale value on this one put's it very high against the competition. Anything with a LIECA lens is expensive since they have always been the world leader next to haselblad.

Riz

condyk

alric wrote:

I know 12x is a lot for a digital camera, but I like a 24mm for landscape, 24x12=288, and 300mm is not enough really for wildlife, espacially birds

" LEICA DC VARIO-ELMARIT lens offering 12x optical zoom (equivalent to 35 to 420mm with a 35mm film camera) with F2.8 aperture throughout the entire zoom range."

I agree with you for birds but less so with bigger wildlife. We're probably not talking about specialist photography with this level of equipment tho'. Show me where you can get 24mm for £200 and I'm first in line ;-) I've taken some awesome wildlife shots with everything from x3 up as well as with my last SLR which was 400mm. I've taken some goodies with a 10x Fuji too partly because the camera was small enough to have with me at the time. Even for the specialist, this Panasonic would be a great camera to have with you when you're not carrying the very big stuff.

rizla01

Hi All.

O.K. I'm very close to going ahead with this one but can anyone tell me how bad 320 x 240 @ 30 or 10 frames per second is in practice please.

I have never had a camera with 'Movie' capability before and feel that I should try to get one with as much capability as possible and feel that the movie mode will have many uses.

I have Photo's of my (now deceased) Mum but movies of her, with sound would have been a godsend, and I couldn't justify having TWO digicams.

Riz

condyk

chappy wrote:

I'm just on the verge of buying this one, Fuji s5500

Jayne, I had the early S5000 model which is almost identical. This was a very decent camera and there is a useful user forum if you need advice, pointers, etc. I just found I didn't use it too much: I found it a bit fiddly for some reason, but it's personal preference. I don't think it has image stabilization and, personally, I think this is vital on a super zoom. But only an issue if zoom is vital for you. The S5000 did take standard and rechargeable batteries tho' and that was useful in theory, though I'd always charge up a fitted battery overnight anyway so never an issue with me. I certainly think the Panasonic is a better buy because of the lens and usability, but the Fuji is a very good choice if it's more to your liking. Handling is important and if you like a camera you'll use it more.

shrek101

TBH you better off with a camcorder mindv for movies than using a digital camera. I have a Minolta Dimage A2 8 MP whilst its great for stills and the odd movie (apple quicktime) its just really for the odd minute. I have seen other cameras that do similar things and they all have low quality video. Its a nice feature to have dont get me wromg but it mearly like I said for the odd minute or so of video.

Review here

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04072203panasonicfz3prev.asp

Video consumes vast amount of memory and the quality is pretty low. However having said that this camera with the specs seems pretty good buy.

Same as some camcorders do stills mine does but they are rather poor for stills.

condyk

rizla01 wrote:

O.K. I'm very close to going ahead with this one but can anyone tell me how bad 320 x 240 @ 30 or 10 frames per second is in practice please.

Think half decent webcam ... not really my area but I did use my previous digicam to record some video a few times and, as with a webcam, it's almost a waste of time unless you want just a basic record. In your case, even very average quality would have been nice to have tho. I wouldn't buy a camera if video was an realistic important need and you'll have to pay out for a large capacity memory card to hold the video. Even so, you're talking several seconds or maybe a minute or two depending on capacity.

rizla01

O.K. Condyk and Shrek.

Your comments have made my mind up for me.

When I sold my Nikon SLR on Ebay last year I promised myself a quality digicam to replace it with and this looks like the one for me.

I did have my doubts about the useability of 'Movie mode' and suspected that, for a long time yet, they will be different pieces of equipment, as seems to be the case.

By now I would also have expected MP3 to be incorporated but again, this seems to be so, only in the 'gimicky' market.

So main priority is for some good stills (having suffered a 1.3 for too long) so I'm now getting my credit card.

How Strange - I thought this forum was going to put money IN my pocket. Not take it out:(

Thanks for all of your advice.

shrek101

LOL rizla01 I know what you mean, thought the site was for saving money. Since joining, I bought a Dell computer at £183, a dab telephone yesterday at £50, camcorder the other week @ £263. Still got interest free credit on CC and changed phone supplier yesterday. Enough of that

Anyhow I always say its worth having a good camera, even though at times I cant afford it, you cant afford to loose precious memories and photos/home movies give so much joy