Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50

If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7 megapixel
will give overall better results than the 10 megapixel, which will have
considerably more noise in the image, and will produce generally poorer
results hat higher ISO settings. Since a 4" x 6" print only requires 2
megapixels for a good print, the 7 megapixel is more than enough.


--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.

Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

<aniramca.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179674516.289251.184330@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
> by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
> differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
> expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
> in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
> My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
> only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
> Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
> better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
> heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
> Thanks for info
>
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

On May 20, 12:22 pm, "Stan Beck" <stan....RemoveThis@neworleansphotographs.com>
wrote:
> If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7 megapixel
> will give overall better results than the 10 megapixel, which will have
> considerably more noise in the image, and will produce generally poorer
> results hat higher ISO settings. Since a 4" x 6" print only requires 2
> megapixels for a good print, the 7 megapixel is more than enough.
>
> --
> I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
>
> Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
> To reply, remove 101 from address.
> ***
I forgot to mention another difference between the Fz8 and Fz50 -
Fz50's sensor is larger than the Fz8's ( 1/1.8" vs 1/2.5")
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

On May 21, 10:05 am, "Jeff R." <contact... RemoveThis @this.ng> wrote:
> <anira... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179674516.289251.184330@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> > Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
> > by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
> > differences between the two cameras.FZ50is approx. 50% more
> > expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
> > in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
> > My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
> > only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
> > Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
> > better quality on the photos forFz50. But it is so much bulkier and
> > heavier than theFz8. However, I do like the feel on theFz50than the
> >Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought theFz8
> > and wondering if he/she should have opt for theFz50instead.
> > Thanks for info
>
> FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
> better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
> any large Panasonic.
>
> --
> Jeff R.
> (no kidding - its *horrible*)

I strongly dissagree. I owned an FZ30 for a while before moving to a
dSLR. I found it a great camera to use - easily the best P&S I've
owned - and got some nice shots with it. It's got a decent lens and
good controls that give quick access to most settings. The only major
gripe I had with it is the high level of noise from the sensor (or
associated major artifacts from the Noise reduction in the camera).
However this does not normally affect standard prints really - it's of
most concern when trying to shoot in low light (which is this camera
is very bad at) or when printing at large sizes. This camera (and the
FZ50) offers a lot of great features (including v good optical IS/VR),
and a build standard higher than many entry level dSLRs - calling it a
POS is just OTT. What were your specific problems with it? (I assume
it was noise/noise reduction related).

S
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

<aniramca RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179674516.289251.184330@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
> by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
> differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
> expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
> in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
> My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
> only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
> Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
> better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
> heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
> Thanks for info


FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
any large Panasonic.

--
Jeff R.
(no kidding - its *horrible*)
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

Jeff R. wrote:
[]
> FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get
> much better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by
> a few miles) any large Panasonic.

The Leica optics used on Panasonic cameras should allow them to produce
excellent results, bearing in mind the small sensor and therefore using
ISO 100 or lower for best quality. Perhaps the automatic higher-ISO-boost
is better turned off.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

I think you will find this interesting reading:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/


--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.

Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

<aniramca.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179722207.314928.88270@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 12:22 pm, "Stan Beck" <stan....DeleteThis@neworleansphotographs.com>
> wrote:
>> If the sensors are the same size (I'm certain that they are) the 7
>> megapixel
>> will give overall better results than the 10 megapixel, which will have
>> considerably more noise in the image, and will produce generally poorer
>> results hat higher ISO settings. Since a 4" x 6" print only requires 2
>> megapixels for a good print, the 7 megapixel is more than enough.
>>
>> --
>> I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
>>
>> Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
>> To reply, remove 101 from address.
>> ***
> I forgot to mention another difference between the Fz8 and Fz50 -
> Fz50's sensor is larger than the Fz8's ( 1/1.8" vs 1/2.5")
>
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

I have a Panasonic FZ10, and it's a great little camera, for it's class, and
was better than most of the comparable cameras of that time. But I can't
really compare it to my Nikon D200. Naturally, my D200 photos are better.

--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.

Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

<bgsosh.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179748093.632838.297920@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 10:05 am, "Jeff R." <contact....TakeThisOut@this.ng> wrote:
>> <anira....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1179674516.289251.184330@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>> > Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
>> > by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
>> > differences between the two cameras.FZ50is approx. 50% more
>> > expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
>> > in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
>> > My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
>> > only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
>> > Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
>> > better quality on the photos forFz50. But it is so much bulkier and
>> > heavier than theFz8. However, I do like the feel on theFz50than the
>> >Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought theFz8
>> > and wondering if he/she should have opt for theFz50instead.
>> > Thanks for info
>>
>> FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
>> better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few
>> miles)
>> any large Panasonic.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
>> (no kidding - its *horrible*)
>
> I strongly dissagree. I owned an FZ30 for a while before moving to a
> dSLR. I found it a great camera to use - easily the best P&S I've
> owned - and got some nice shots with it. It's got a decent lens and
> good controls that give quick access to most settings. The only major
> gripe I had with it is the high level of noise from the sensor (or
> associated major artifacts from the Noise reduction in the camera).
> However this does not normally affect standard prints really - it's of
> most concern when trying to shoot in low light (which is this camera
> is very bad at) or when printing at large sizes. This camera (and the
> FZ50) offers a lot of great features (including v good optical IS/VR),
> and a build standard higher than many entry level dSLRs - calling it a
> POS is just OTT. What were your specific problems with it? (I assume
> it was noise/noise reduction related).
>
> S
>
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

In message <465152b6$0$610$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R.
<contact.me.TakeThisOut@this.ng> writes
>
><aniramca.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1179674516.289251.184330@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
>> by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
>> differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
>> expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
>> in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
>> My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
>> only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
>> Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
>> better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
>> heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
>> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
>> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.
>> Thanks for info
>
>
>FWIW, I have an FZ30, and it is an unmitigated complete POS. I get much
>better results from my teeny little Nikon L3. I would pass (by a few miles)
>any large Panasonic.
>
>--
>Jeff R.
>(no kidding - its *horrible*)
>
>
I have to differ here. The only two complaints I have with my FZ30 is
that the zoom ought to equate to a 28-300mm rather than the 35-420mm
that it is. It would be useful to have more wide-angle capability, as
the extreme telephoto length never gets used. The other problem is a
tendency to purple-fringing on some high-contrast parts of a picture.
Overall, it's still among the best prosumer wide-range zoom cameras.
--
Chris Morriss
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

On 20 May 2007 08:21:56 -0700
aniramca RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:

> I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
> Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
> by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
> differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
> expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
> in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
> My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
> only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
> Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
> better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
> heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
> Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
> and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.

You apparently missed most of the differences between the two cameras.
The larger FZ50 has more room for external controls like a real
mechanically-linked zoom ring and a focus-by-wire ring on the lens,
an external switch to control the focus mode, dials for adjusting
aperture and shutter in manual modes, and probably several more.
The cost for the extra features is more bulk and dollars. You get
to choose.

Note that both of the cameras you're looking at have small sensors
that will suffer in low light and have lots of noise at high ISO
settings. I bought an FZ30 a year ago when the choice was against
the FZ7 (or was it the FZ6?). Other than wishing Panasonic hadn't
pushed it all the way to 8MP, I'm fairly happy with the camera.

Paul Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50 

aniramca.TakeThisOut@gmail.com observed
>I went to a photo shop and take a look at both cameras. I checked the
>Lumix brochure, in which the two camera's features are compared side
>by side. I seem to notice that there are generally very small
>differences between the two cameras. FZ50 is approx. 50% more
>expensive, larger size or bulkier,10 MP instead of 7 MP, almost double
>in its weight, and has a hotshoe flash.
>My question is whether it is worth to go to spend 50% more, if you
>only want to need to take just regular good quality still photos.
>Sample pictures comparing the two cameras seem to show just a tiny bit
>better quality on the photos for Fz50. But it is so much bulkier and
>heavier than the Fz8. However, I do like the feel on the Fz50 than the
>Fz8. I am curious to know if any of the readers here bought the Fz8
>and wondering if he/she should have opt for the Fz50 instead.

I've had an FZ3, an FZ5 and now an FZ50.

The lens on each is brilliant throughout the zoom range.

I've been happy with the FZ5, but wanted manual focus, direct zoom,
external flash shoe. I understand the FZ8 has included two of these
options. It is happy (with post processing) to produce A3+ photos.

However the FZ50 is stunning (although I sent the first one back because
it emitted a low whine when on), and I am delighted. But compared with
the FZ5, it IS heavy. I'm keeping the FZ5 for backpacking and long
walks.

But in film cameras I lugged a huge number of (fixed) lenses around and
never had the right lens on the camera or had left it behind to save
weight. So I am not going to SLR now.

From what you describe, I'd recommend the FZ8 - if you don't know why
the FZ50 is better for you, buy the FZ8!

HIH

Mike

--
Michael J Davis

Now with added pictures on http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

<><
Even Photographic newsgroups sometimes lose perspective.
<><
 >> Stay informed about: Panasonic Lumix Fz8 vs Fz50