I think I will briefly jump to the defense of my FZ50. At the time (it is no longer in production) it was the top of the Panasonic line, and has aimed at the "prosumer" user.
1. speed: push the button, and the picture is already taken. Zero perceptible delay. Sure, the best P&S cameras are quicker than they used to be, but nowhere near as quick as a run of the mill DSLR.
From a review published on Amazon.com:
With its multi-task image processing capability, the Venus Engine III also boasts outstanding response time with an industry-leading level of shutter release time lag of as short as 0.009 seconds.2. depth-of-field: P&S always have loads of depth of field, which can be very useful for landscapes and architecture. And very hindering for people photos, or anything else where the subject needs to be more isolated from its background.
The camera is fully manually controllable: shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus, and I control depth of field by appropriate aperture selection.
3. Ease of operation: just peer through the large viewfinder, and press the button. No trying to hold (and see!) a shaky screen at arms length in bright sunlight.
The FZ50 has a large high-resolution dedicated viewfinder in addition to the viewing screen (I would
never have a camera without) and if necessary it can be digitally adjusted for enhanced brightness in low-light situations.
4. It works in the dark: or nearly so. Natural light photos are possible just about anywhere, under just about any conditions.
You got me there. The low-light performance of the FZ50 is barely adequate, and certainly not comparable to the capabilities of a good DSLR. Trying to compensate by cranking the ISO up beyond 800 (400, really, if you are picky) just makes a low-contrast, noisy picture.
As I said before, there are tradeoffs in image quality, but the differences are hardly noticeable under normal circumstances and the versatility is more than enough compensation for me. YMMV.
Attached are two pictures extolling both the versatility and the limitations of the camera. These are full-frame pictures, unedited or modified in any way. What kind of DSLR kit would have been needed to take these two shots? My apologies for not re-sizing them, I wanted to show as much detail as I could, so they are each nearly 4 MB.
tanstaafl.
edit: The descriptions on the pictures didn't work right - the only description that made it is for the first picture. The second description should have said something about full zoom including digital, and lost contrast and sharpness.
Previous Topic
Index
