267 of 272 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Panasonic Lumix FZ100 14.1MP Digital Camera - Black (3.0 inch TFT LCD Display, LEICA DC Lens with 24x Optical Zoom and Full HD Movie) (Electronics)
As a professional photographer, I'm used to all sorts of cameras and formats, including plate, film and digital.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as 'the perfect' camera; one type will better than another depending on what feature you want... but if you want a quality bridge camera that's truly an all rounder with little or no bulk, and is as close to perfect as is currently available, then I'd say this is one of the best!
Granted, it's not perfect in every way, but don't let that put you off! If you want a bridge camera that has it all - literally, then I think this is the best on the market at this time. In some respects it's not as good as, say, my Nikon D300 SLR (which I think is brilliant), but its close! Thing is, this has so many more features that my D300 and all its lenses, is tiny by comparison, and costs an awful lot less!
Ignore the nonsense that some of the other contributors have mentioned about halos, and poor images above a certain ISO etc... Those comments suggest to me that these people don't understand how a camera works, or how `zoom' lenses work, or how to properly calculate exposure. The only way I could recreate the sort of poor performances that others report here, was if I set the camera to unachievable exposure settings.
The quality of images above a certain ISO setting has been commented upon a fair bit by others on here... In response to them, all I'd ask is, do they really understand what an ISO setting is?! In the days before digital, most people wouldn't have ever used Film speeds above 200 ASA rating - so bearing in mind that `ISO' is synonymous with film ASA ratings - then its inevitable that the higher ISO will lead to a reduced image quality, just like you would have done with film - the laws of physics cannot be changed!
Why use such a high ISO setting in any case?! A knowledgeable photographer would stick with a specific ISO for the job in hand, and achieve the correct exposure by using either flash, and / or a tripod. Raising the ISO is one way of achieving `correct' exposure for hand held photography - but with the inevitable loss of quality; that's an expected trade off for not using flash or a tripod, which is limited and driven by the laws of physics, and is true of any camera!
So, for those here who are critical of this camera for the ISO results... Do yourselves a favour and learn and understand the laws of photography and exposure before passing such spurious comments! Granted, the automatic settings on this camera will change the ISO settings for you rather than suggest you should use flash or a tripod, but that is something you can over-ride once you've familiarised yourself with all the settings, and know a little bit about photography.
In my opinion, this is a cracking little (and I mean - little) beauty, that can produce images as good as any other `35mm' SLR or DSLR camera I've ever used, and is as good as any HD Camcorder I've had as well. The lens is awesome; this camera punches well above its weight, and all for under £350 if you shop around!
So, for all these reasons, as a bridge camera, I cannot recommend it highly enough!
Tracked by 11 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 55 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 8 Oct 2010 14:25:06 BDT
Last edited by the author on 8 Oct 2010 14:58:35 BDT
Bravo! I could not have put it better!!!!!
Posted on 10 Oct 2010 20:52:03 BDT
M. P. Davies says:
Excellent review .. for anybody who knows the basics of photography and who actually used film stock in the ASA days .. the comments are obvious but needed to be made. Thanks
PS - I've just bought the FZ100 in the past week and have found it to be fabulous in all respects.
Posted on 24 Oct 2010 21:14:27 BDT
Congratulation! You just hit the spot! All these "photographers" who have not even understand the simplest rules of optic should better buy a full automatic camera without playing around with settings what they don't understand. I have recently bought the camera and find it outstanding in quality and possibilities and with a lense from wideangle to Megazoom equivalent to 25mm-600mm unbelievable close to SLR. My congratulations to the engineers of this camera.
Posted on 26 Oct 2010 00:16:29 BDT
Mr. David E. Oddie says:
The fact most people never used film above ISO 200 (a debatable point in itself especially in sports photography) is irrelevant. If the camera gives poor image quality at ISO 200 or above then the fact film wasn't very good at ASA 200 or above is also irrelevant. That was then, this is now and image quality from modern cameras is not judged on how they compare to film but to their modern counterparts.
And if the original reviewer is a professional they will know it is not always possible or desirable to use a flash or to use a tripod and stick to lower ISO's. Technology moves on and to allows us to push the boundaries without having to work as Fox Talbot did.
In digital the law of physics that can 't be changed is that a small sensor crammed with pixels will be noisier than a larger less densely packed one at a given ISO and this is where the analogy with film breaks down. ISO 200 on one camera can be a lot cleaner than on another as I am sure the o/p knows given they own Nikon D-SLR
It may be unreasonable to expect bridge cameras such as this to have good high ISO performance but there is no need to be so patronising about such "spurious comments".
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2010 23:39:30 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Oct 2010 01:43:40 BDT
Yes, I really am a professional photographer, and I really don't agree with what you're saying here at all! Sounds to me like you know a little about this subject... but judging by your posts, you don't know enough to properly substantiate the negative comments you're alluding to here.
I use tripods and flash all the time with all my cameras (even point and press compacts); I also use the ISO option to obtain the result I need depending on the image I'm aiming for. I don't find the higher ISO of this camera any worse than most DSLRs I've used on the whole - so if yours is poor - then what on earth are you comparing it to? What exposure settings have you been using and most important of all, what were the lux levels at the time?
As for sports photography... Your point is only relevant, if you're trying to push the bounds of lower light photography, in order to obtain a faster shutter speeds! But that's true of all cameras! If you want to do that sort of thing - then get yourself a DSLR and you might gain the equivalent of a couple of stops over this camera depending on which one you go for, but you will have paid a lot more money to get that little extra!
Being a photographer is all about picking the right tool for the job in hand, and like a mechanic would not expect a trusty 'adjustable wrench' to be as good as a fixed jawed spanner, a photographer shouldn't have unrealistic expectations of a bridge camera!
As for patronising? Well, I'm afraid that the words `pot' and `kettle' spring to mind here - but If you do regard what I've said as being that way, then it seems you're very over sensitive to honest, sincere, unbiased and constructive feedback. Perhaps you're not used to that sort of thing in your local camera club?!
I've used this camera for about a month now, and I compare it to a range of other cameras for over 25 years professionally. I feel strongly about fair play... and I really don't think the negative comments that were made about this camera by a couple of people, are in anyway fair or accurate, and if those who do make these negative comments really do know a thing about photography, then they are being wholly dishonest in that case!
So, if by pointing all that out makes me a patroniser - then, I'd much prefer to be that way inclined, than for me to make or even to allow misleading, unfair and potentially damaging comments to be made about what is a decent, competent all-round camera, which is tiny compared to pro DSLR but gives them a damn good run for their money!
This camera it is what it is, I see it as the camera equivalent to the 'adjustable spanner', and boy, it's damn good one at that, and the best I've ever had!
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Oct 2010 01:51:31 BDT
Thanks Wibo - I agree! Its awesome. Imagine the size and cost of the optics if that lens was a DSLR lens!
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Oct 2010 06:56:29 BDT
Exactly! And the costs and burden of a HD video camera too!
Posted on 27 Oct 2010 09:06:27 BDT
I. Hayden says:
A very well balanced review, I agree that there are no perfect cameras, the manufacturers would clamp their own market if they produced one. I have been looking to replace my FZ18, but so far all the upgraded superzooms just made increases in pixel count, requiring a more powerful processor to deal with the noise created by the ever more packed sensor. The end result does not seem to produce any significantly better results just adding things that are not essential. I find that despite owning a range of cameras, the superzoom is always one that gets taken out on a sunny day. I will be checking out the FZ100, which has had many very mixed reviews, to see if it has any advantages over my FZ18, other than the 1080 video