DMC-FZ35 gets (mainly) good review

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dudley Hanks, Nov 5, 2009.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "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, Nov 5, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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, Nov 5, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    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/technology/personaltech/05camera.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 5, 2009
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Guest Guest

    always an excuse.
    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.
     
    Guest, Nov 5, 2009
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    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, Nov 5, 2009
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Nov 5, 2009
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    mianileng Guest

    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, Nov 5, 2009
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    mianileng Guest

    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, Nov 5, 2009
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    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, Nov 5, 2009
    #9
  10. 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!, Nov 5, 2009
    #10
  11. Nor will they compare which batteries they use. Which vary widely from OEM
    to OEM. Poor testing methods results in garbage in = garbage out.
     
    Truth in Testing, Nov 5, 2009
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks

    mianileng Guest

    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, Nov 6, 2009
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks

    mianileng Guest

    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, Nov 6, 2009
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.