-
stars
"Let's Put these "Pro" Reviews into Perspective." on by NewsView
Pros: stabilized zoom, viewfinder, easy handling, excellent optics, sharp images
Cons: Joystick seems fragile, LCD screen needs at least 130K pixels, some pictures noisy
Summary: Over the past three weeks I've done a lot of digital camera research. It's been six years since I purchased my first digital camera, a Panasonic PV SD4090, and I had a lot of catching up to do. Before buying the Panasonic FZ7 I tried the Panasonic LZ2 (also a good pick), the Olympus SP-350 and not one but THREE Fuji FinePix F10s, all of which failed to deliver sharp images at high ISOs despite being a number one pick in 2005 for low light performance. Having tried the "best" consumer-level, high ISO point-and-shoot camera on the market and found it wanting three times over, I was left with a limited range of cameras featuring a high ISO "boost", all of which are viewed as worthless options in the eyes of professional reviewers—e.g. people who are spoiled by dSLRs.
Early on it became clear that unless you have the hands of a surgeon, the lowest noise stats won’t matter one iota if hand shake blurs your pictures. That narrowed the field down to Panasonic, Sony and Canon, which are the major players in the image stabilization category. (Fuji and others claim to offer IS, but instead of a gyroscope they provide high ISO substitutes, which, in the absence of manual controls, does not increase the shutter speed sufficiently to eliminate potential motion blur and camera shake.)
If you visit digital camera review sites, you will see that reviewers have mastered the art of “pixel scrutiny.” Oftentimes reviewers will rely on posters of outdoor scenes — canned wall posters! — rather than venturing into the natural world. They test equipment under controlled settings using the camera's default sharpening, color and noise reduction to make their judgments. Therefore, if a camera over saturates color, for example, the average pro reviewer will disparage such a camera without testing any of the adjustment options. The same goes for noise processing, sharpening and other variables that may be fine tuned depending on model in question. Such reviewers then proceed to make impressive but impractical comparisons using crops in order to magnify all signs of noise and chromatic aberration. (If you want something to worry about though, be more concerned about CA and purple fringing, which will stand out even to the untrained eye.)
To put this into perspective, cropping a digital image to the extent and degree that so-called professional reviewers do is akin to a dermatologist taking your face and putting it under a 100x microscope only to exclaim that you that you have a poor complexion, when to anyone looking at normal face-to-face distances you have the skin of a baby or a porcelain doll. In other words, unless an image flaw is noticeable even at normal, uncropped sizes, chances are that image noise comparisons will have little, if any, real-world detriment on your photos. Unfortunately, most professional reviewers simply do not print their results. Instead, they evaluate camera performance with software and computer monitors, all of which alter the perception of color, saturation and other subjective variables. In short, there’s no substitute for evaluating a camera’s OUTPUT. That means PRINT.
And this brings me to pro reviewers’ rubber-stamp criticism of the Panasonic FZ7 at high or even normal ISOs.
Rubbish.
As I mentioned earlier, I owned three Fuji FinePix F10s. These cameras created a CULT FOLLOWING because 400, 800 and 1600 ISOs were so effective. Yet what I saw in real-world testing was anything BUT impressive when using natural light (a scene mode with high ISOs and suppressed flash). The pictures were soft. They looked hazy. They looked imprecise. They looked out of focus. They looked bright-as-day yet dull and lifeless. Hand shake — which the high ISO was supposed to compensate for — was still very much a problem. Unfortunately, there was no image stabilization to offset the negative effects of simply pushing the shutter button. Thus, in all practicality, the F10 is a low light loser when used without a tripod or a surgeon’s ultra steady grip. Consider: What does it matter if you can snap a picture in pitch black if that picture is so fuzzy that you wouldn’t want to print it?
Enter the Panasonic FZ7. Some reviewers have gone so far as to say that they wouldn’t use the FZ7 at ISO 200 let alone ISO 400+. They claim the noise is such that the results look like “oil paintings” and not photos. Okay. Here’s the bad: Some photos DO look a bit splotchy, even those with flash (low ISOs). But here’s the good: Splotchy photos are the exception and NOT the rule. This is one of the fastest cameras I have used, which means you can easily snap enough pictures in short succession to get one that is not the least bit offensive wherein noise is concerned.
All the way around the Panasonic FZ7 will focus faster — fully 2 seconds faster under low light than the Fuji F10! — and a greater percentage of photos will come out sharp and clear than your average competitor. It’s all in the lens — the Leica lens, that is.
I’ve shot in available light using the high ISO scene boost, and while I won’t be printing these pics at 13x19 on my Canon i9900 or even 8x10, high ISO photos are detailed and sharp compared to anything the three overrated Fuji FinePix F10s could produce indoors during the day with lights on and blinds open.
So let’s recap. Are we to worry about “high noise” or are we going to be more concerned with a higher degree of successful pictures (non blurred, accurate focus, speedy shutter, etc.). In my case, I wanted superior optics for sharper images. Any point-and-shoot camera will produce a cliche digital camera look: a picture devoid of anything that looks like it would be sharp or rough enough to scrape a finger. Even bricks and stones come out looking airbrushed by the time your average digital camera finishes writing them to your memory card. And coming from an artist’s perspective, that just isn’t true to life. Only a reliable focus system and optimal optics will reproduce mood, texture and realism. And that’s where the Panasonic FZ7 shines. Coupled with one of the best AUTO white balance systems I’ve run across — and that’s including a comparison to two dSLRs — the FZ7 hits a home run. With accurate white balance comes truer color and less time processing them later. Kudos to Panasonic.
Much ado about noise? Here’s my advice: Take the photos into Photoshop or a noise reduction program and strip it out if it is a problem (to my eye it is generally NOT, however). Now try that with your average Fuji FinePix F10 — meaning try to put back detail where camera shake, motion blur or in-camera noise reduction has eliminated and oblitrated it.
“Not possible,” you protest?
Correct!
It’s much easier to deal with a camera that will allow you to adjust noise settings — as the FZ7 will — than deal with a camera that makes all the decisions for you and ends up making your picture look soft and artificial.
In art school they tell you that if you stare at your drawing or painting too long you will be unable to see it for what it is. You might even ruin it if you continue to work after you’ve lost your objectivity. You MUST to step away to get a bigger perspective on what strikes you as wrong and what strikes you as right. The same goes for professional digital camera reviewers. These folks are looking at so many cameras and so many charts and so many studio lights and so many tripods and so many graphs and so many stats that they can no longer just pick up a camera and see it for what it is. What is the FZ7? A solid performer that is faster and lighter and easier to hold than just about anything else. A camera that offers simple menues and straightforward options. And did I mention a optically stabilized 12x zoom? Did I mention the ability to shoot in lossless TIF? Did I mention that unlike the Panasonic FZ20 and FZ30 this is MUCH smaller and easier to tote about? Did I mention that if you are unhappy with the color, contrast, sharpening or noise reduction you can CONTROL these factors?
If you are going to be concerned about something be concerned about a camera’s battery life, optical qualities and the surety of a digital camera’s auto focus system, paying particular attention to its behavior under household light and similarly dim conditions (restaurants, etc.). An outstanding auto focus system will mean the difference between obtaining that charming pic of your child at a birthday party vs. having to stand there trying to refocus until the moment is gone. By contrast, camera noise — unless you plan on printing images larger than 8x10, which you really shouldn’t attempt with a 6MP anyway — is most likely a nil issue.
Get the camera. You won’t regret it.
- 8 replies to this review
-
You have expressed what I have been sensing and miss the real world. I'm already looking to replace my Sony DSC-H1, surely a fine camera in someone else's hands, because its IS system falls focus-short for the shots that I need. Close ups are gorgeous, but how does one use a tripod shooting straight up a 1000 ft. tower at 12X to find an antenna fault? Or get a sharp focus at any zoom sitting on horseback in the beautiful west? The Sony IS fails.<br>So I'm reading reviews of the current 6-7 MP offerings and cruising the stores. Right off, CNET sorely pans the FZ8 over noise. Then makes the same complaint about all the others! What's the deal? Then it knocks Canon over some features and mechanics and still rates it higher with a 12X demo photo that's HORRIBLE!! I'm confused! One, or more, of the higher rated models only offer JPEG while the FZ8 included TIF, RAW and a threaded lense adapter.<br>Then I fumble with them in-store; a guy who's just vaguely aware that F-stop, shutter speed and ISO mean something. Yet, I still want fiddle features like that so I can figure it out, one day. I take the equivalent auto-mode Sony, Fuju, Canon and FZ8 shot of a distant store sign at 12x by hand, looking for the model with IS that will actually stabalize the image. The only clear shot was by the FZ8, in which I could read the sign's FINE print, razor sharp, in the LCD. NONE of the others took a clear shot, and I saw why. The FZ8 literally refuses to move a focused zoomed image except VERY slowly, while the others moved more like real time. No wonder! Generally, only a pro would care it takes the FZ8 0.2 seconds longer between frames, so s/he wouldn't be looking at this genre camera, anyway.<br>After that, I don't know what's better, but I know this. What good is color balance, noise, 12X zoom and so on if the camera can't focus in the field? I'm still looking, but Panasonic is looking mighty good, right now.
-
Okay, we get the point: reviewers are making too much over the noise issue.<br><br>But you make too many sweeping generalizations, *poetic metaphors*, and unsubstantiated claims to be taken seriously. <br><br>I mean, how do you know that reviewers "will rely on posters of outdoor scenes" and don't go out in the real world? You state that as if you know this for a fact. Personally, it strikes me as bunk. All the "pro reviewer" sites I have come across have had "in the field" samples.<br><br>BTW, there's no analogy between your dermatology scenario and the one of a cropped sample of a photo. A photo, when made, is at its maximum resolution; it cannot be *magnified* or *zoomed in* when it's cropped. The way you talk, you're making it sound as though when somebody takes a picture of a person and crops down to the eye, this newly cropped piece is magically magnified to show all of the image's flaws. <br><br>What has happened here is that you have clearly confused the difference between a CROPPED photograph and a BLOWN UP photograph. When you can show reviewers running pics in Photoshop and UPSIZING them, then you can talk.<br><br>This review is also coming across as nothing more than a fanboy bash. If you think reviewers are coming down too hard on Panasonics for noise, what on earth does Fuji have to do with that? Not a gosh-darned thing.<br><br>And lastly, I think it's absurd for anyone to downplay noise as a criticism. That's like downplaying blurriness, lol. Why don't you write a review that bashes pro reviewers that come down on a camera for bad focusing issues or durability or something?
-
He is comparing apples and oranges! He continues to bring up the Fuji f10 against the panasonic DMC-F27.The Fuji is a moving lens against the fixed lens of the Panasonic. A fixed lens should take less "noisy" photos. I have tried the Panasonic F27, I used it for 4 days thanks to my neighbor showing off their new camera!<br>While the images were sharp and clear when shown on my Sony 36" Wega they lost all that when printed on paper on my Epson R220.<br>And while he is continuing to bad mouth Fuji, I have to say it was the poor performance of the Panasonic DMC F27K on Paper that pushed me into doing a three month exhaustive review of the best Camera for under $400.00. I tried an Olympus sp-510 uz, YUCKKK! While it had nice features it took a lousy picture when put to paper. My Main subjects for my photos are my Rescued Ferrets. And since they move very quickly, it is important for me that a Camera have Anti- Blur, auto focus, an adjustable manual ISO settings, etc. I found the menu in the F27K to be confusing at best when trying to set these requirements, not enabling me to make the adjustments I wanted when I wanted. I tried the Canon S2IS, it was a marvelous unit, but it only went to ISO 400. I also tried the Fujifilm S5200/S5600. Now here is a camera that allowed me to go from 64 to 1600 ISO, turn off and on High speed shooting, 10 X Optical, 5.7 Digital, While the view finder showed a lot of noise, I really don't use the view finder much, instead opting to use the 1.8 LCD. (Isn't that part of the reason we went digital? lol) Granted the Panasonic came with a Tube adapter and Petal Hood, it also requires it's own special Battery. While the Fuji runs on 4 AA, an XD instead of an SD Card. etc. All cameras are going to have their strong and weak points, especially when trying to get the best one for YOU on a budget. The Fuji S5200 was $98.00 less than the Panasonic DMC F27K where I bought it and I bought filters, an aluminum tube adapter, a Petal Hood, a 1GB XD Card and An Extended Warranty with just the difference in price. So instead of bashing Manufacturer's for your personal preferences and mistakenly placing blame on everything and everybody else, (like the Pro's) perhaps we should aim to remember everybody has different needs when it comes to a digital camera, and just relate our experience with one or the other as we are able to further help someone who would be using the unit in a similar fashion as ourselves. I wonder how many people remember the old Kodak Brownie and what great black and whites it took when it first came out as it was my first "pro-like" camera. heehee!
-
Unfortunately, a considerable number of the "professional" reviewers get caught up in a display of meaningless technical jargon. Meaningless to the rest of us, that is.<br><br>I have found the DMC-FZ7K to be a SPECTACULAR performer in the real world. I opted for consumers' opinions over "profesional" reviews in making my decision - a preference for the real world as opposed to the theoretical. <br><br>Since I still don't have a clue as to what "purplish tinges at the fringes" look like, or what effect a "tendency for "low-light fractalization" could have on my pictures, I'm ecstatic that I ignored the "pros". As a consequence, I've ended up with a camera of REAL quality, REAL value, and one which takes REALLY nice pictures (overall) of the REAL world around me.
-
I am a real novice and was experiencing information overload from the "PRO'S". Thanks for putting it in terms I can understand and for confirming that my choice of the FZ27 was a good one.
-
Having recently purchased the same camera, my decision was based on the lens. My view is that for the asking price, the DMC-F27 has the best lens you can buy. Some shots are a bit noisy; the camera will shoot in very rapid succession and one of several shots will be close to if not perfect! Just erase the ones you don't like. The camera is easy to use, has a nice feel, and works more like a much more expensive DSLR. It takes 16x9 as well as 4x3 images and does a great job with both. The 12x optical zoom is excellent, and the standard color pallet is very natural. I have yet to try the macro and color program options but will do so this weekend. So far I love it. It's a whole lot of fun for what you pay.
-
I came to the USA from India on a sad occassion the burial of my son SSG Noel R Rao at Arlington National Cemetry. I then went to San Antonio and since I found my film camera equipment getting cumbersome and had a small budget to go digital, I tried to look around for something for my needs and came across the Panasonic Lumix FZ7K. It was love at first sight and the choice was either that or the Canon S2 IS in the same price category. I did not have much time to test the cameras and in the store Circuit City in San Antonio, I found the Lumix much more responsive and the images looked crisp on the LCD screen. I bought it along with a GB ultra II SD card and was very happy with it for the few days I had left in the US. On my return I started reading reviews and my heart broke when more than one very complete reveiw I read said that the camera was a joke at any speed over iso ioo and there was too much noise for the camera to be of much use. However I do use photoshop, though an old version6 and was able to clean up my pix easily. Many did not need any meddling with either. So when I read this article by NewsView my heart responded with gladness. True I have yet learned to tweak the camera to get the best out of it, but am confident that I will be able to get good pix that I will print.<br>My first Leica was the IIIF and I can never forget the biting crispness of even that old camera which I sadly had to part with in the early 90' as there was no one to fix it in India at that time. Once a Leica owner always one I say and that is that.
-
I would have to agree with this post. I have reviewed more cameras than I care to mention. The choices out there are mind boggeling.<br>I had a strong urge to go with a true digital SLR, but when one looks at the features the DMZ-FZ7 offers, the choice for me is this stops here. THIS IS the camera that will get my hard earned money
- next review Back to product review See 29 reviews
Write a Review
Online Stores
Store Promotions In Stock Price Total Cost Initial Sort Order 
No Yes Tax: TBD
Ship: TBD
$429.95 Shop Now See all prices 
%20user%20review%20and%20rating%20-%20CNET%20Reviews&srcUrl=http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz7k/4864-6501_7-31684200-1.html&x_breadcrumb=6451:6501&x_arw_bkts=MAD:high_wireless_switcher){kind=small}