Image Quality - FZ100 vs P500? I am debating between FZ100 and P500. I am moving towards FZ100 because of the f2.8. Any feedback regarding the image quality on them or how much of an impact f 0.6 will be? Image Quality - FZ100 vs P500? I am debating between FZ100 and P500. I am moving towards FZ100 because of the f2.8. Any feedback regarding the image quality on them or how much of an impact f 0.6... » Read More Image Quality - FZ100 vs P500? I am debating between FZ100 and P500. I am moving towards FZ100 because of the f2.8. Any feedback regarding the image quality on them or how much of an impact f 0.6 will be? « Show Less
458493
The SX30 IS has been replaced by the SX 40 HS and I believe the FZ100 has been replaced by the FZ150. Both addressed problems with the previous models There is very little out about the Canaon yet, but the emerging consensus regarding the two is that the Canon has better image quality (very good quality for this kind of camera). The Panasonic's images while very good, do not match the Canon's and it doesn't have as much zoom (the Canon's and Nikon's zoom range is essentially the same), but it offers more features, including RAW, and significantly better LCD. Both have an articulating display far superior in operation to the Nikon. The SX30 IS has been replaced by the SX 40 HS and I believe the FZ100 has been replaced by the FZ150. Both addressed problems with the previous models There is very little out about the Canaon yet, but the emerging consensus regarding the two is that the Canon has better image quality (very good quality for this kind of camera). The Panasonic's images while very good, do not match the Canon's and it doesn't have as much zoom (the Canon's and Nikon's zoom range is essentially the same), but it offers more features, including RAW, and significantly better LCD. Both have an articulating... » Read More The SX30 IS has been replaced by the SX 40 HS and I believe the FZ100 has been replaced by the FZ150. Both addressed problems with the previous models There is very little out about the Canaon yet, but the emerging consensus regarding the two is that the Canon has better image quality (very good quality for this kind of camera). The Panasonic's images while very good, do not match the Canon's and it doesn't have as much zoom (the Canon's and Nikon's zoom range is essentially the same), but it offers more features, including RAW, and significantly better LCD. Both have an articulating display far superior in operation to the Nikon. « Show Less
458494
I'm between the same two models, and was also considering the Canon SX30IS. I recommend you read the in-depth reviews on www.imaging-resource.com. Unfortunately, despite all the great features of the Panasonic FZ100 and the Leica lens, it's image quality doesn't compare to the Nikon. Compare the noise and detail of the sample images in both of these reviews. It's too bad, I was about to get the FZ100 until I saw how poor the image detail was up close. But that website ended up giving the Nikon P500 a high recomendation, while they could not in good conscience give the FZ100 any sort of recomendation at all. I'm between the same two models, and was also considering the Canon SX30IS. I recommend you read the in-depth reviews on www.imaging-resource.com. Unfortunately, despite all the great features of the Panasonic FZ100 and the Leica lens, it's image quality doesn't compare to the Nikon. Compare the noise and detail of the sample images in both of these reviews. It's too bad, I was about to get the FZ100 until I saw how poor the image detail was up close. But that website ended up giving the Nikon P500 a high recomendation, while they could not in good conscience give the FZ100 any sort of... » Read More I'm between the same two models, and was also considering the Canon SX30IS. I recommend you read the in-depth reviews on www.imaging-resource.com. Unfortunately, despite all the great features of the Panasonic FZ100 and the Leica lens, it's image quality doesn't compare to the Nikon. Compare the noise and detail of the sample images in both of these reviews. It's too bad, I was about to get the FZ100 until I saw how poor the image detail was up close. But that website ended up giving the Nikon P500 a high recomendation, while they could not in good conscience give the FZ100 any sort of recomendation at all. « Show Less
678606
Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just... » Read More Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. « Show Less
2043803
The main difference appears to be the aperture. The f/2.8 will work better in lower light giving you at least an extra stop of light to play with. This means shorter exposures in lower light than the f/4-5.6.
374900
There is a comparison on dpreview.com in the Panasonic forum, at ISO 1600. The FZ40 I think has truer color (richer wood color, for example) and is at least as good in other ways (I think slightly less color blotchiness) - overall, I think the FZ40 won mostly due to better color.
1306624
Good to know and good answer, Les. Clears it up. Still, I wonder why there is only one amazon review so far. I have the FZ28 and would upgrade w more positive comments -28 would go to girlfriend or son BTW [or backup (just in case)].Oct 20: Went to the girlfriend -got the FZ40. Very pleased.
1943433
I did a lot of research between these two cameras before I bought mine (the Panasonic FZ35) and the most helpful website was cameralabs.com. They have side by side comparisons of pictures and video footage so you can see for yourself the difference in image quality.
1646833
Hi Henry, FZ30 Iso are...Light sensitivity Auto ISO, ISO 80, ISO 100, ISO 200, ISO 400..ok?Its an old camera now, buy the FZ200 is a much better buy.
1775546
@ R. Barg. I directly compared the ZT with the F8500. The F8500's extra brightness was readily apparent in the high ambient light room I saw both sets set up in but I doubt you'd miss any brightness if you had the ZT or VT without a side by side direct comparison with the 8500. My ZT is plenty bright for my needs and during the day I have a bright living room in which its set up. In the very bright environment of the dealer's shop the ZT and VT Panasonics did look a little dimmer than the F8500 when they were all set to equal picture modes but the difference wasn't striking. The F8500 can be calibrated to be a lot brighter though if that's what someone is looking for. For me it was the ZT all the way. The VT60 and F8500 both looked really great no doubt about that and really they're all at the top performance wise but I wanted "the best" (to what I can afford) and from everything I've read, everything I saw when I saw them all in the same room and what I have experienced so far since purchasing the ZT, I made the right choice based on my preferences and how I watch TV. This TV displays gorgeous images, the better the source, the greater the picture quality. As for whites, they look truly white to my eyes on my ZT in all lighting environments, day/night. In the shop the whites did look "whiter" on the F8500 and the LCDs in the room but outside the direct comparison of that showroom, my ZT's white look brilliant. Hope that helps.
209419
I really like the Panasonic ZS30. I do not have the Fuji f900, although I've heard nice things about it. Google www.dpreview.com. I think they have professional reviews of both cameras. Might also try www.whatdigitalcamera.com. Another good place for professional reviews is www.cameralabs.com. If you go to www.whatdigitalcamera.com, it is a British magazine, and the ZS30 is known as the TZ40 in Europe - same camera. Both the Fuji and the Panasonic are highly rated. Another option to consider - Panasonic has announced that the ZS40 - next upgrade - will be coming out in March. It will have a 30X zoom, RAW shooting, and EVF, and several other new features. Might want to check that one out if you can wait a bit.
2018169
I went to the camera store today to compare these two cameras and came away with a definite lean toward the FZ18 vs the TZ3. The three big negative factors for the TZ were: 1. There was significant color blurring (red text on white background) when magnifying comparable shots (the FZ was clean); the compression noise was also significantly higher on the TZ3. 2. The image stabilization on the TZ3 at 12X zoom was WAY inferior to the FZ18 at 18X. I had a LOT of trouble getting one clear shot out of 10 tries at 12X with the TZ3, while the FZ18 gave perfect 18X images 9 out of 10 times. I don't know why this might be, and I checked all the settings on both cameras to be sure I wasn't comparing apples to oranges, but these results are real. 3. The TZ3 does not have a viewfinder and I have found that in bright sunlight outdoors a viewfinder is a huge plus. All this said, the TZ3 is still a nice camera for the size - it is pocketable (in baggy pants) while the FZ18 is not. -- Just my 2 cents. _eric
260132
Both are good cameras but S95 has a better image quality and it shoots raw but if u are not into image editing then u dont need raw format jpeg will be good enough. The real con for p300 is that it dosent have a good video quality in HD mode be it 720 or 1080P. Its video is choppy but if u record in non HD u will be good. Right now p300 is $230 with free shipping. I will get it rather than get s95. Both qualities will never match up to DSLR. $230 offer ends 1 OCT 2011. get it now people. rather than spend almost $400 as in $360+ on s95. FYI s100 is out.
190424
Fuji has inconsistent quality control, which I found when I purchased the F10. The first camera took VERY blurry photos, the second 1/3 and the third maybe 1/5 (in default settings). Don't doubt yourself and your picture snapping skills. If you've read the manual and you are still having problems I would recommend an exchange.
695085
I have the SD1300IS, the Panasonic TZ5, TZ7, and FZ35. In general, all my Panasonics take better pictures that the SD1300. The SD1300 takes good pics, but the reason I keep it is for its small size, not its PQ. I don't have the FH25, but I highly doubt its picture quality is noticeably worse than the SD1300.
382296
if your camera model has a better sensor that handles high ISO's well (i.e. little noise) the 70-200 F4 is fantastic ... I kept my F2.8 ( fantastic lens but much heavier plus mines an older version W/VR1) but never use any more as the F4 coupled with a D800 is a great combo
876663
Brad - I don't think you can go wrong with either camera. Add to for your consideration the Sony HX5 - it's on a par with these two.I looked long and hard at all 3 of these, researching specs and comments, as well as trying them out in camera stores, etc. I finally chose the S8100, although only coming out in September the amount of reviews is sparse - but even compared to the S8000 earlier model the improved S8100 proves to be a great camera. One thing I really like is the heft and feel of the camera, as well as the professional and high quality look and detail of the camera. It's a joy to take photos with this camera. The photos from it are stunning. Brad - I don't think you can go wrong with either camera. Add to for your consideration the Sony HX5 - it's on a par with these two.I looked long and hard at all 3 of these, researching specs and comments, as well as trying them out in camera stores, etc. I finally chose the S8100, although only coming out in September the amount of reviews is sparse - but even compared to the S8000 earlier model the improved S8100 proves to be a great camera. One thing I really like is the heft and feel of the camera, as well as the professional and high quality look and detail of the camera.... » Read More Brad - I don't think you can go wrong with either camera. Add to for your consideration the Sony HX5 - it's on a par with these two.I looked long and hard at all 3 of these, researching specs and comments, as well as trying them out in camera stores, etc. I finally chose the S8100, although only coming out in September the amount of reviews is sparse - but even compared to the S8000 earlier model the improved S8100 proves to be a great camera. One thing I really like is the heft and feel of the camera, as well as the professional and high quality look and detail of the camera. It's a joy to take photos with this camera. The photos from it are stunning. « Show Less
646120
Hello,On EXR and Auto mode I've found my images in low light to be sub par without using the flash - which then can unfortunately cause it's own set of problems. However, as I learn the camera I find adjusting the settings and really depending on the manual as a reference guide, along with youtube tutorial videos that my low and dim light photos are improving. I'm an Amateur at this stage of course but more advanced photographers would have an effortless time taking great shots in low light conditions. If you're shopping around check out the Panasonic FZ200 and the Sony DDSC-HX300 both have won tremendous accolades for low light performance. Hope this helps! Hello,On EXR and Auto mode I've found my images in low light to be sub par without using the flash - which then can unfortunately cause it's own set of problems. However, as I learn the camera I find adjusting the settings and really depending on the manual as a reference guide, along with youtube tutorial videos that my low and dim light photos are improving. I'm an Amateur at this stage of course but more advanced photographers would have an effortless time taking great shots in low light conditions. If you're shopping around check out the Panasonic FZ200 and the Sony... » Read More Hello,On EXR and Auto mode I've found my images in low light to be sub par without using the flash - which then can unfortunately cause it's own set of problems. However, as I learn the camera I find adjusting the settings and really depending on the manual as a reference guide, along with youtube tutorial videos that my low and dim light photos are improving. I'm an Amateur at this stage of course but more advanced photographers would have an effortless time taking great shots in low light conditions. If you're shopping around check out the Panasonic FZ200 and the Sony DDSC-HX300 both have won tremendous accolades for low light performance. Hope this helps! « Show Less
736774
Given the high ISO capability and the noise-handling of current softwares (LR4!), I see no compelling reason for the extra stop, weight, bulk and expense of the f 2.8 version. It is NO sharper than its little brother. And you already have the 85 f 1.8.