DMC-FZ35 gets (mainly) good review

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:42:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<> wrote:

>
>"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.
>

Nor will they compare which batteries they use. Which vary widely from OEM
to OEM. Poor testing methods results in garbage in = garbage out.


>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
>
>

Truth in Testing

Truth in Testing wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:42:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>>
>
> Nor will they compare which batteries they use. Which vary
> widely
> from OEM to OEM. Poor testing methods results in garbage in =
> garbage
> out.
>
I'd think that the question of brand doesn't arise with
proprietary batteries. And there has to be *some* standard for
testing to be able to provide a technical specification. The
alternative would be a test result published with something like
"under normal shooting conditions" which will be so vague and so
variable as to be even more meaningless - for publication on a
specs sheet.

For real world trials, well, that's what independent reviewers
are for. But the results would hardly be precise enough to
qualify for inclusion on a specs sheet.

If we suspect or can prove that the manufacturer lied about the
test results, that's a different matter.

Even with cameras using AA batteries, a test would have to be run
with a popular brand while assuming that it has approximately the
stated capacity. Otherwise, the particular batteries used would
also have to be tested outside the camera and the shot capacity
statement would have to be accompanied by something like "This
camera was tested with battery model X, production batch Y and
serial #Z, which was tested to have xx% of the nominal mAh
capacity"

mianileng

Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> I've had an FZ15 for quite a while, and like it better than
> other
> superzooms in my experience. The Leica lens is really
> something, and
> (unusual for this type of camera) on the FZ15 its max aperture
> is
> f/2.8 *all the way*. That is really nice.

After keeping an FZ20 and an FZ30 together for quite some time, I
had a chance to sell either of them for a good price last year.
It was tough deciding which one to keep. I like the fast turn-on,
ring zoom, swivel LCD, etc of the FZ30, but I also preferred the
constant f/2.8 and overall out-of the-box image quality of the
FZ20. In the end, I reluctantly chose to sell the FZ20. I really
miss the constant f/2.8.

mianileng