Panasonic DMC-FZ5

I just bought one and am very disappointed to find that a user can not
change the degree of zooming when in movie mode; in other words, once
you select a focus that includes a certain amount of telephoto zoom,
you are stuck at that zoom level till you stop the movie and start a
new movie. BUMMER!

Secondly, even though everyone raves about the image stabilizer, I have
to say that my old Sony Mavica MVC-FD91 had/has a far superior
stabilizer.

The new Canon S2 may be the way to go.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp

 

Oh my dog! Another idjit....if you wanted a video cam you should have bought
a video cam instead of a still camera......video mode on a still camera is a
defect not a feature.

 

The Panasonic FZ5 is primarily a stills camera and, like all stills
cameras, has some limitations in video mode. I am sure this is documented
in the manual.

I what way was the SOny "far superior"? I have found the image
stabilisation on the FZ5 (and the FZ20) to be extremely effective and meet
its claimed 2 - 3 stop gain.

David

 

Does turning off movie audio restore the zoom function? That's how my
Olympus C750 works, otherwise you get zoom noises recorded.

 

Also: When in the movie mode, as you track your subject, the lens F
stop is locked at the initial setting that the movie started at.
Therefore, there is no light compensation for changes of lighting
level.

 

So put a Casio P505 in the other pocket - it will zoom in video mode.

 

I would not call it a defect. I do think it is just an add on
convenience that should not be a significant feature when choosing a
camera. I am concerned by noise above ISO80 when making A4
enlargements. To get increased depth of field at a hand holdable
shutter speed you have to boost the ISO.

 

measekite wrote:
[] I am concerned by noise above ISO80 when making A4

What depth of field do you want, and therefore what aperture would you
consider necessary? Remember that the focal length of these cameras is
very short compared to 35mm, and therefore the depth of field is
proportionally much larger.

David