Panasonic Lumix FZ...

[NickMorgan]

Sorry to be a bit of a bore, but I am seriously considering buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ (either 45 or 150). We have a couple of holidays planned for this year and even though I can’t really afford a new camera I feel that it would be better to buy one now rather than in the future. I have been trawling through old posts and certainly the Lumix comes very highly recommended. I still have a few questions about this kind of camera, I’m afraid.
We had a similar-looking Minolta at work, but the macro didn’t work when zoomed. I currently use a little Canon compact, which is great as I can hold it at arm’s length to get close-up shots, without alarming the butterflies too much. I would love to be able to stand further away and zoom in for the picture.
Is the Lumix able to do this? Ideally, I would like to be able to stand a couple of metres away from the subject to take a picture.
I see talk of a close up lens that can be added. Why is that thought necessary?
Is there any great advantage of the FZ150 over the FZ45, or even the FZ100 which still seems to be available?
Thanks for any help.

[Gruditch]

I may be wrong, but if the close up lens does what I would expect from a close up lens, then it will mean you have to get close to the subject. It should enable those nice diffused backgrounds, as it will give a narrow depth of field, but there will be a very restricted working distance.

Regards Gruditch

[John W]

I have a Lumix FZ 38. When using it without a close up lens, I normally go to maximum zoom (18x) and stand about 4 - 5 feet away - any closer and it won't focus. With a close up lens, you need to be about 15 inches away, and if you zoom in you will get the diffuse backgrounds. But depth of field is not very good so if you have an antenna sticking up from the plane of the wings it will be out of focus.

Neil (Sussex Kipper) is probably the authority on the Lumix FZ series!

Cheers
John

[David M]

I bought an FZ45 last year and whilst it DOES allow you to take pretty good close ups, the quality is obviously inferior to those using proper professional equipment.

To be honest, I've found that using the automatic setting does the job most of the time, and it's pretty good at capturing subjects well out of reach such as a small butterfly 7 metres up in a tree. To use the close-up setting, you really have to be quite close to the butterfly, i.e. within 4 feet. Even then it's easy to zoom in too close and end up with a blurred image.

[EricY]

Nick, I am over the moon so far with my fz150 although at moment I do keep it with my old Sony1758tc permanently attached for birding etc. Beware the fz100, if you read the forums it does not have a good reputation for speed or IQ. That is why panny dropped the mp to12 for the 150 instead of the 14 of the 100. Read up on all the users comments on 150 on dpreview.com, virtually everyone considers it the best bridge cam at moment. It does take a bit of getting used to with a large menu, most of that i do not use. I still carry my sony H50 for the odd landscape & macro etc but I am considering getting a 2nd fz150 so I can keep one with the tc attached. Had mine from UKdig in Ormskirk & their price at moment is 359, used them before & good service. Best of luck in your choice but in my opinion 150 is worth the extra bucks over the 45. Eric

[EricY]

Forgot to say the big advantage for me of fz150 over the fz45 is the turn out/tiltable screen. Saves getting creaking joints by nealing or lying down for a photo (younger ones may not have this problem...yet!)
Also for those who would like to see the way the menues work on the fz150 a guy called Graham Houghton has 7 videos going through all the features i/c video of 12mins - 24mins length, over 2 hours total viewing so quite comprehensive on utube. I have found them invauable. His utube user name is ghough12. Eric

[NickMorgan]

Thanks very much for your replies. Certainly the FZ150 seems to be the one to go for. Even though it is twice the price of the FZ45 I think I would regret not spending more to get the better product. From the reviews the 12MP sensor seems to give much better results than the 14MP.
The truth is that I am happy with the quality of the pictures I get from my Canon compact, but I would like to be able to take pictures from further away. As long as the quality is as good as the Canon I will be happy. I could never justify the cost of a DSLR with appropriate lenses and even if I could afford one I am not sure that I would want to have to carry it with me along with tripod, etc.

[Jack Harrison]

I am seriously considering getting the Panasonic FZ150 but there MIGHT be a concern about extra batteries. I have never found that just one battery is sufficient - I always carry a spare.

I have heard a rumour that you need to get "proper" Panasonic batteries as these are "chipped" (ie, a crafty trick to stop you buying/using cloned equivalents). I have spare bog-standard batteries for my Lumix FZ38 and there are no issues. So does anyone know the situation with the FZ150?

Jack

[EricY]

Jack, I got a EXpro power plus through Amazon. Works perfectly & shows the remaining charge on the screen in blocks just like the original, quite happy with it & about half the price on Panny's. Eric

[Catteraxe]

Just bought an FZ150 to replace my ageing FZ18 in readiness for a week long holiday to Madeira in late April. Haven't yet had the opportunity to get to grips with it (only arrived Wednesday) but as soon as I have a few worthwhile shots I'll post them here. Initial observations are good; it's a slightly bigger/heavier than the FZ18 which suits me as I have long fingers which makes using compact cameras slightly awkward.

C

[NickMorgan]

Just bought an FZ150 to replace my ageing FZ18 in readiness for a week long holiday to Madeira in late April. Haven't yet had the opportunity to get to grips with it (only arrived Wednesday) but as soon as I have a few worthwhile shots I'll post them here. Initial observations are good; it's a slightly bigger/heavier than the FZ18 which suits me as I have long fingers which makes using compact cameras slightly awkward.

C

I'll be interested to hear how you get on.
My father has given me a long-term loan of his Olympus SP590, but it seems that the closest it can focus is about 3 metres when it is zoomed.

[Catteraxe]

Hi NIck,

I had the same zoom problem with the FZ18. I tried out the FZ150 for the first time last weekend but only taking a few experimental shots of Jackdaws and dandelions in the back garden. The main issue with the zoom, as it was on the FZ18, is that if you shoot in RAW, which I prefer, the Digital zoom is disabled. However, the larger Optical zoom on the FZ150 does partially compensate for that. The quality of the those first few shots is very good but I would expect that in comparison to the FZ18. Below is a dandelion close-up zoomed from a few inches.

C

[NickMorgan]

My FZ150 arrived yesterday, but by the time the battery had charged up it was dark. Still, I managed to take a picture of the light shade in the opposite corner of the room about six metres away, using full zoom. What an incredible result you can see every stitch. It could also zoom into the computer monitor from about a metre away and produce a great picture. I'm delighted.
Today it has been overcast and raining all day, and that seems to be the forecast for the next ten days, but I can't wait to try it out on some butterflies.

[Catteraxe]

I've now had the opportunity to use the FZ150 whilst on holiday in Madeira and below are a couple of butterflies I managed to take (Clouded Yellow and a Monarch) and a Finch which I think is a Eurasian Siskin. I am pleased with the results but still debating over whether to shoot in RAW or JPEG. Using RAW means no digital zoom but better quality. I might well experiment with JPEG and see whether I like the outcome.

[Jack Harrison]

Using RAW means no digital zoom but better quality.

RAW won't offer digital zoom for the very simple reason it is the basic image that is recorded on the sensor and you cannot get something for nothing. That basic image is then processed within the camera (or afterwards with something like PhotoShop), to make adjustments such as compression, Jpgs, correcting barrel or pincushion distortion, offering digital zoom, and so on. Digital zoom is nothing more than a big con trick in any case. It can only reveal detail than is arriving on the sensor and nothing more. Cropping/resizing in post processing achieves precisely the same result.

One significant fact about the FZ150, alluded to in some of the reviews, is that the default sharpness setting (to produce a Jpg) indeed does result in a decidedly soft image. After much experimentation, I have tweaked up the sharpness setting to maximum. Of course, when shooting in RAW, there is no sharpness adjustment until the photographer does something (or nothing) himself. RAW allows control but can be a lot of hassle.

If you haven't seen my recent experiments with my new FZ150 (taken as Jpgs), see my diary:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4056&start=320#p58961
and
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4056&start=320#p58977

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

This shows the articulated screen in action in the butterfly house. The shot would have been impossible with a straight-through viewfinder or a fixed screen.


Photo courtesy Mike Rubin.

Jack

[Catteraxe]

Hi Jack,

The cropping/re-sizing is something I've only toyed with so further experimentation is needed there. I also find the articulated screen great for composition and a major plus for the FZ150. Great photos by the way!

C

[NickMorgan]

Jack,
That is a fantastic shot demonstrating the use of the FZ150. You look to be less than a metre away from the butterfly there. Are you using a close-up lens?
I have had a couple of chances to try my FZ150 out since I bought it. Only very brief chances at lunch time on the two days the sun has shone in the last couple of weeks! I am amazed by its ability to zoom into butterflies from about 2 metres. The pictures aren't particularly sharp and I think I have a lot to learn.
This picture of an orange tip was taken at about 2 metres on X24 zoom. There are obviously issues with exposure on this picture (as with most pictures I try to take of orange tips), but it was much easier taking this from a distance, rather than sneaking up using my old compact camera.

The picture looks quite reasonable when cropped.

Even at 100% I can't complain at the quality.

I was a little disappointed with the results when trying to take a picture of a peacock. I thought that I would have more success with a larger butterfly (!) and certainly there wasn't the issue of the sunlight being reflected. This was the best shot I managed, which looks pretty good at this size.

However, when zoomed up to 100% it is a little fuzzy.

I imagine a lot of the problem is being caused by movement. Again it was X24 zoom.
One think I have noticed is that because the lens is so wide-angled, you have to be very close to the subject when taking macro pictures. I have seen some amazing pictures on here by people who have Panasonic Lumix. Any tips about macro would be very gratefully received. For instance taking a picture of a blue or similar small butterfly, I imagine that I would have to get pretty close up, rather than use the zoom.
I have also played around with using different settings on the camera, but haven't noticed much improvement over the Auto setting. The instruction book is rather large and I would so much prefer to have a book to leaf through than have it on the computer.
Thanks for any help.

[Jack Harrison]

In answer to two points from Nick.

If you select AF macro (middle position on switch on left) you can focus down to 1.00 metres even at full telephoto. The top position, AF is optimised for shots at greater range (2.0 metres +) as that gives faster auto focus. However auto focus is very quick in all modes.

Yes, I do sometimes use a supplementary lens. It screws straight into the front of the lens with a 52 mm thread. I happened already to have an achromatic lens (colour corrected optics to bring all wavelengths of light to the same focus) but a simple supplementary lens (often called plano) is probably almost as good. No need for fancy adaptors and flash is still usable (unlike the FZ38 when it has the fancy and expensive adaptor connected).

I got my achromatic for about £11 (actually I bought two). I doubt you could get at that price again, but try Googling for 52 mm +2 achromatic lens – you never know. It does NOT have to be the Panasonic brand. Any (reputable – eg Sigma) will do. You might find that a +2 diopter lens is also confusingly called a 500D.

You might want to look at this explanation of close-up lenses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-up_filter

Just think of them as reading glasses for a camera.

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

This pushes the FX150 to the limit.

ISO 200, F/8, max telephoto, +2 close-up lens, flash.

Subsequent experience with the camera shows that slightly better resolution would have been obtained at wider aperture, eg F/5.6 to reduce the diffraction effects associated with small apertures.
I should have remembered this as I already had read about it.
See: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm

ISO 100 might have been better but that would be a negligible improvement (noise is well controlled at ISO 200 with the FZ150)

Jack