DMC-FZ35 gets (mainly) good review

"One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its battery life is
weak. All superzooms consume more power than average point-and-shoot
cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed especially brief.

All things considered, though, the Lumix proved to be a worthy travel
companion. So good, in fact, that my Nikon D60 DSLR found its way out of the
camera bag only one day during an entire week of sightseeing."

From The New York Times
November 5, 2009

Personal Tech
A Camera Delivers The Joys of Auto Pilot
By RIK FAIRLIE

Dudley Hanks

"Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
news:Q%DIm.51602$PH1.33535@edtnps82...
> "One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its battery life is
> weak. All superzooms consume more power than average point-and-shoot
> cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed especially brief.
>
> All things considered, though, the Lumix proved to be a worthy travel
> companion. So good, in fact, that my Nikon D60 DSLR found its way out of
> the camera bag only one day during an entire week of sightseeing."

Sadly, nothing on D P Review showing what the high ISO performance might
be like:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072704panafz38.asp

Pansonic have a long history of cameras like this, and I was very pleased
with the FZ5 I used some time back, so I wish them well with this model.
I think the EVF is about 512 x 384 pixels or a shade bigger (201.6K pixels
claimed) which might be a welcome improvement.

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor

"David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote in
message news:u9EIm.2078$ ...
> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
> news:Q%DIm.51602$PH1.33535@edtnps82...
>> "One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its battery life is
>> weak. All superzooms consume more power than average point-and-shoot
>> cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed especially brief.
>>
>> All things considered, though, the Lumix proved to be a worthy travel
>> companion. So good, in fact, that my Nikon D60 DSLR found its way out of
>> the camera bag only one day during an entire week of sightseeing."
>
> Sadly, nothing on D P Review showing what the high ISO performance might
> be like:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072704panafz38.asp
>
> Pansonic have a long history of cameras like this, and I was very pleased
> with the FZ5 I used some time back, so I wish them well with this model. I
> think the EVF is about 512 x 384 pixels or a shade bigger (201.6K pixels
> claimed) which might be a welcome improvement.
>
> Cheers,
> David

According to the reviewer, the lowlight performance, generally, was good.
But, it's not exactly an indepth critique...

View the review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/te...ef=todayspaper

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks

In article <>, John Navas
<> wrote:

> >"One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its battery life is
> >weak. All superzooms consume more power than average point-and-shoot
> >cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed especially brief.
>
> It may have been a defective battery

always an excuse.

> -- my DMC-FZ28 is very similar
> right down to the same battery, and I've yet to run out of power in a
> day of shooting, even with heavy use of flash.

then you don't shoot much not to mention that it's a different camera
with different power demands. panasonic claims 470 shots for the fz35
which i consider to be 'especially brief.' real world shooting is
probably less.

nospam

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:051120091333064335%...
> In article <>, John Navas
> <> wrote:
>
>> >"One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its battery life is
>> >weak. All superzooms consume more power than average point-and-shoot
>> >cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed especially brief.
>>
>> It may have been a defective battery
>
> always an excuse.
>
>> -- my DMC-FZ28 is very similar
>> right down to the same battery, and I've yet to run out of power in a
>> day of shooting, even with heavy use of flash.
>
> then you don't shoot much not to mention that it's a different camera
> with different power demands. panasonic claims 470 shots for the fz35
> which i consider to be 'especially brief.' real world shooting is
> probably less.

And, that rating will be for shooting without flash or active rear display.
With heavy flash usage, half the rating. Add in the display, and you're
probably down to just over a hundred shots, if that.

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks

In article <D1FIm.51605$PH1.48102@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks
<> wrote:

> And, that rating will be for shooting without flash or active rear display.
> With heavy flash usage, half the rating. Add in the display, and you're
> probably down to just over a hundred shots, if that.

i doubt it's that low, but even if it does get its rated 400+ photos, a
typical dslr gets 1000-2000 or more. that may seem like a lot of photos
but as someone who does a lot of panoramas, one 'scene' can easily be
20-50 shots. it adds up fast.

nospam

David J Taylor wrote:
> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
> news:Q%DIm.51602$PH1.33535@edtnps82...
>> "One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its
>> battery
>> life is weak. All superzooms consume more power than average
>> point-and-shoot cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed
>> especially brief. All things considered, though, the Lumix
>> proved to be a worthy travel
>> companion. So good, in fact, that my Nikon D60 DSLR found its
>> way
>> out of the camera bag only one day during an entire week of
>> sightseeing."
>
> Sadly, nothing on D P Review showing what the high ISO
> performance
> might be like:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072704panafz38.asp
>
> Pansonic have a long history of cameras like this, and I was
> very
> pleased with the FZ5 I used some time back, so I wish them well
> with
> this model. I think the EVF is about 512 x 384 pixels or a
> shade
> bigger (201.6K pixels claimed) which might be a welcome
> improvement.
>

That link is to a press release, so it's not likely to show any
critical evaluation. I'd also like to know what the noise level
is like. I really like my Panas but there's no denying that their
noise level is higher than average. I sure wish they'd go back to
no more than 8 MP for their small-sensor cameras.

mianileng

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "nospam" <> wrote in message
> news:051120091333064335%...
>>
>> panasonic claims 470 shots for the fz35
>> which i consider to be 'especially brief.' real world
>> shooting is
>> probably less.
>
> And, that rating will be for shooting without flash or active
> rear
> display. With heavy flash usage, half the rating. Add in the
> display, and you're probably down to just over a hundred shots,
> if
> that.
They do say in the press release that those 470 shots are
according to CIPA standard. IIRC, that's with flash on every
alternate shot, 10 seconds ON period for each shot and one full
extension and retraction of the lens for each shot (I assume this
is not counting lens movements at power on/off). These are vague
recollections of the CIPA specs, so please correct me if I got
something wrong.

mianileng

"mianileng" <> wrote in message
news:hcvdel$6j2$...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
>> news:051120091333064335%...
>>>
>>> panasonic claims 470 shots for the fz35
>>> which i consider to be 'especially brief.' real world shooting is
>>> probably less.
>>
>> And, that rating will be for shooting without flash or active rear
>> display. With heavy flash usage, half the rating. Add in the
>> display, and you're probably down to just over a hundred shots, if
>> that.
> They do say in the press release that those 470 shots are according to
> CIPA standard. IIRC, that's with flash on every alternate shot, 10 seconds
> ON period for each shot and one full extension and retraction of the lens
> for each shot (I assume this is not counting lens movements at power
> on/off). These are vague recollections of the CIPA specs, so please
> correct me if I got something wrong.
>

I'm not sure how the CIPA standards are determined / implemented. But, I'm
guessing that the flash output is not full discharge each time.

Just going by my own experience using cams in low-light, I have yet to use
one which achieves the stated number of shots.

I do much / most of my work in low-light, and the flash often is at or near
full output. Add in the rear display and I'm lucky to actually fire 1/4 of
the CIPA guesstimation. Granted, I tend to take longer framing each shot
than most photographers, but I still get a chuckle whenever I read the specs
on new cams...

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:33:06 -0500, nospam <> wrote:

>In article <>, John Navas
><> wrote:
>
>> >"One of my few complaints about the DMC-FZ35 is that its battery life is
>> >weak. All superzooms consume more power than average point-and-shoot
>> >cameras, but the FZ35's battery life seemed especially brief.
>>
>> It may have been a defective battery
>
>always an excuse.
>
>> -- my DMC-FZ28 is very similar
>> right down to the same battery, and I've yet to run out of power in a
>> day of shooting, even with heavy use of flash.
>
>then you don't shoot much not to mention that it's a different camera
>with different power demands. panasonic claims 470 shots for the fz35
>which i consider to be 'especially brief.' real world shooting is
>probably less.

Sigh ... the troll who depends on what he reads online rather than relying
1s-hand experience with any equipment at all. Nothing more needs be said.

Outing Trolls is FUN!