www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hi all,

I need to get a new camera, and I'm considering either a Panasonlc Lumix FZ150 or FZ200. I can get a 2nd hand FZ150 quite a bit cheaper than a new FZ200. I was wondering if anyone could suggest any pro's or con's of one camera versus the other. The specs seem quite similar.

Thanks for any thoughts
John W

See reviews on http://www.dpreview.com/products/panaso ... c_dmcfz150
and http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panason ... -dmc-fz200
The FZ 200 which I have wins by a short head.
"Panasonic has done almost everything right with the FZ200, producing a super zoom with a no-compromises lens. It performs very well, takes photos that are comparable (or better) than other super zooms, and has a top-notch movie mode. With a few refinements in the design and image quality department, it would be darn close to perfect."
Ian

I chose the FZ200 for two reasons.

1. The viewfinder of the FZ200 has a much higher resolution (1.3M dots vs. 201k dots), with a very clear crisp image. Try looking through both, to help you decide

2. The FZ200 lens maintains f/2.8 aperture across the whole zoom range (against f/5.3 at full zoom in the FZ150). This is almost two stops faster (factor of 4) and makes it possible to take hand-held photos at a long zoom setting, while keeping a low ISO setting for good noise performance.

I have also found, in using the FZ200 that its HDR mode is very useful in contrasty light situations, It takes a series of photos at different exposure settings and then combines them to ensure that highlights are not blown out, while shadows remain noise-free. A similar technique is applied to hand-held night photos, where, again,the camera combines a number of short exposures to build the final image.

Mike

I have an fz150. I recently had the chance to try a friend's fz200.

The fz150 is fine but in truth, no contest for various reasons (many outlined above).

Go for the fz200

Jack

Mike has

also found, in using the FZ200 that its HDR mode is very useful in contrasty light situations, It takes a series of photos at different exposure settings and then combines them to ensure that highlights are not blown out, while shadows remain noise-free.

If you get the chance Mike, explain a little please. I do understand about the series of photos at different exposures but how does the in-camera software then combine them? For example, does the camera have to be on a tripod to ensure that all shots are framed exactly the same? Or is the software clever enough to to combine the images even if the originals are not perfectly aligned? Without HDR, the normal brightness range of a bridge camera is in the order of 10 stops. Any idea what the fz 200 HDR can achieve?

And here's a fun shot from yesterday. (poor quality through car windscreen).
That Buzzard didn't have a clue how to deal with a hedgehog.

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:If you get the chance Mike, explain a little please. I do understand about the series of photos at different exposures but how does the in-camera software then combine them? For example, does the camera have to be on a tripod to ensure that all shots are framed exactly the same? Or is the software clever enough to to combine the images even if the originals are not perfectly aligned? Without HDR, the normal brightness range of a bridge camera is in the order of 10 stops. Any idea what the fz 200 HDR can achieve?

I'm not sure I can answer all these questions, Jack, but here is a couple of photos that I took deliberately to test HDR mode against normal P mode. They were taken indoors at an RHS flower show, hand-held with a shutter speed of 1/60s at a focal length of 7.4mm (41mm equiv). I can't see any mis-alignment in the HDR image, so I assume that the software has corrected any 'shake'
The 'hand-held night' mode is even more impressive. The following shot was taken, hand-held, at night in a pub car-park, with just a distant floodlight. the camera fired about 20 shots and then combined them to give an apparently 'shake-free' image.
Incidentally, a friend was showing me the trolley he uses to carry his heavy 400mm lens!

Mike

Some more help please Mike before I make a potentially expensive decision.

I am particularly interested in the HDR mode. I do a lot of into-sun photography. I follow the old advice and “expose for the highlights” but then lose the shadows. Photoshop can pull up shadows but there is then noise. Imagenomic Noiseware is excellent software for eliminating noise but cannot recover detail that is not there. For example:

The original had an almost black foreground. But the end result is not satisfactory as there is a nasty transition between the hillside and the sea fog beyond. The overall impression of the photo is harsh.

So an experiment for me please Mike. Photography a high contrast scene but don’t try to keep the camera all that steady. Then we can see what the software achieves. And are the number of exposures electable? I have in mind night sky photography where image stacking is a regular technique. Would the fz200’s HDR cope with the movement of the stars at 1 degree every 4 minutes?

Poor weather today so no butterflies. Yesterday was fine and saw the “Black Butterflies” (Scotch Argus) which are now emerging in numbers. Stella even saw one near the house. Earlier in Glengorm, she did her “mountain goat” impersonation and found Graylings on a rocky outcrop (I stayed on the path).

Listening to music as I write this. From your era Mike? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOO48In ... s&index=18
That always brings a smile to my face when I think back 50+ years to some woodland near Oxford........

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:So an experiment for me please Mike. Photograph a high contrast scene but don’t try to keep the camera all that steady.

I'll see what I can do, Jack.

I regard the HDR mode as a useful 'extra', rather than a prime reason for buying the camera. It's no use for moving subjects, for example. There is no control over the camera settings in this mode.

Mike

Thanks Ian, Mike and Jack for your replies. I have actually decided on the FZ150, partly because cash is a factor at the moment and I can get one about 100 quid cheaper than a FZ200. I never use the EVF so the increased resolution there wouldn't really help me. Also the FZ150 is about 2oz lighter than the FZ200. I tend to walk around in the field with my camera in my hand so as to be ready to take pictures so the lighter the better.

Jack - I seem to remember you saying that you can attach the Panasonic close up lens directly to the FZ150 without buying the Panasonic adapter tube - does it screw straight onto the lens or do you need an adapter ring?

Thanks
John W