backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 30 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Jul 25 at 6:03 PM

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18  (Source: Panasonic)
Panasonic takes its Lumix line to 18x

The battle in the ultra-zoom segment of the digital camera market doesn't appear to be letting up. In February, Sony introduced its 8MP Cyber-shot DSC-H7 ($400) and DSC-H9 ($480) digital cameras with 15x optical zoom. Canon then introduced its 8MP PowerShot S5 IS ($499) with a 12x optical zoom lens in early May.

Not to be left out, Panasonic today announced its new Lumix DMC-FZ18 which features an 8.1MP image sensor, 2.5" LCD (207k pixels) and an 18x 28-504mm LEICA DC VARIO-ELMARIT lens. In order to tackle handshake with an 18x zoom lens, Panasonic has incorporated its MEGA O.I.S (Optical Image Stabilizer) and an Intelligent ISO control which detects and suppresses motion blur.

In addition, the DMC-FZ18 features scene and face detection. The face detection system on the DMC-FZ18 can recognize up to 15 human faces simultaneously which makes it ideal when taking photos of a large group of people.

Thanks to the DMC-FZ18's Venus III engine, the camera can take pictures up to ISO 1600 and can capture sequential shots at 3FPS. The DMC-FZ18 also has the ability to save picture data in a RAW format to easily manipulate picture settings and can capture 400 shots on a single charge.

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 (available in silver or black) will ship this September at a price of $399.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Crappy lens
By defter on 7/24/2007 9:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
Why can't they make decent lenses with F2.8 aperture across the entire zoom range anymore??? My three year old FZ3 can do that.




RE: Crappy lens
By AmbroseAthan on 7/24/2007 10:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
Just because I thought this was a rather bogus claim, I looked it up!

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ3 Aperature: F2.8 - F8.0. That is definitely not F2.8 throughout, and F8.0 would be a killer.
(source: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/pa...

Panasonic DMC-FZ18 Aperature: F2.8 - F4.2. For a 28-500 (approx) lense, that is one heck of a good job with it only hitting F4.2. A F2.8 throughout would likely cost way too much money for a camera like this to be economical.
(source: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072402panasoni...


RE: Crappy lens
By AmbroseAthan on 7/24/2007 10:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, in my links above, delete the paranthesis at the end in the address bar.


RE: Crappy lens
By jpeyton on 7/24/2007 2:07:07 PM , Rating: 3
This is a Panasonic, which means:

Great Body
Great Lens
Great Image Stabilization
Great Battery Life

All turned to crap because they are using the noisiest sensor and processing engine on the market.

Panasonic...if you're listening...scrap the Venus III...scrap your sensor...buy them from Canon, Sony or Fuji instead.


RE: Crappy lens
By eion on 7/25/2007 10:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
As an owner of a Panasonic FX01, I can't disagree with this. Even at ISO80 and ISO100, Noise Ninja is still usually a must.


RE: Crappy lens
By ElFenix on 7/24/2007 11:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
the FZ3 that you linked to is constant f/2.8.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/

i think f/8 is the minimum aperture. which isn't very small, but then with a 4.6 mm lens it is extremely small.


RE: Crappy lens
By KorruptioN on 7/24/2007 11:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
Incorrect - the aperture specifications is on the lens itself.

f2.8-4.6


RE: Crappy lens
By defter on 7/24/2007 11:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. 4.6 refers to focal lenght: http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ3/ima...

1:2.8/4.6 - 55.2 naturally means maximum aperture of 1/2.8 across the whole 12x (55.2/4.6) zoom range.


RE: Crappy lens
By KorruptioN on 7/24/2007 12:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected. It is often difficult to produce a constant aperture lens that covers such a broad range, especially for that size.


RE: Crappy lens
By slashbinslashbash on 7/24/2007 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong. Look at the review you linked:

quote:
constant F2.8 aperture


The maximum aperture is F2.8 throughout the entire zoom range. The minimum aperture is F8.0. I've got a DMC-FZ5 and it has the same constant-2.8 lens. I believe the FZ5 was the last full-size Panny to have this constant aperture, and they switched to 3.3 for the long end of the FZ7.

While I also don't like the move from constant 2.8 to higher apertures, I can understand why they're doing so as they move up from 12X to 18X zoom.


RE: Crappy lens
By Oregonian2 on 7/24/2007 3:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
Same reason many if not most modern 35mm interchangeable zoom lenses have variable f/stops too. They can make constant f/stop lenses but it'll be much bigger, much heavier, and much more expensive. Having the f/2.8 at the telephoto end of the range is just a big lens. So they can make it, but you'll probably not be willing to pay for it nor want to lug it around.


RE: Crappy lens
By Oregonian2 on 7/24/2007 3:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - It's less of a problem if the sensor is a small one because with a tiny sensor the lens system can be tiny as well in a scaling fashion (don't know if it's linear scaling or whatever). However this begs the problem in that one wants a large sensor along with that constant aperture lens at the same time. :-) Still nice to get the constant aperture when one can get it though!


Not a bad price
By jak3676 on 7/24/2007 9:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
Happy to see they kept the price down. $400 for a nice amateur model will be nice. There's been a gap between the entry level models and professional grade equipment for a while now.




RE: Not a bad price
By xsilver on 7/24/2007 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
actually i think the price isnt all that great
you can get a new real DSLR pentax k10d for under $500US

granted its only 6.1mp and the kit lens only gets you so far but the sensor size is far greater than that of these enthusiast cameras.

personally i think these base DSLR's can even break into a lower price point but they wont just because the companies cant afford to have their own product cannabizing sales


RE: Not a bad price
By ElFenix on 7/24/2007 11:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
i don't like where the digicam market is going. there are basically only 3 camera types on the market.

you've got your tiny, me-too fashion accessory cameras with small, noisy sensors, craptastic image quality due to poor lenses, and no photographic control (the makers have decided to 'simplify' camera operation by including dozens of scene modes buried in menus that are slow or hard to access). no one makes any money on these types of cameras, and the reason brands like canon have 50 of them is merely to take up as much space as possible on store shelves (crowding out other brands).

then you've got your superzooms using somewhat better lenses (though superzoom lenses always have tons of compromises built into them, just the laws of physics at work), but still generally noisy images due to the use of the smallest sensors (easier to make a 20x lens using a small sensor than a large one, also results in a much smaller sensor, panasonic was once using 1/3.2" sensors). these at least have photographic controls, generally.

both of these first two types of cameras have generally slow autofocus that uses the main sensor to do contrast detection.

the third type of camera is the slr. which, for all it's photographic might, generally doesn't deliver the promise of digital cameras of high image quality with a small form factor. the E-410 is about as close as it gets, and it's still pretty large. generally SLRs are still doing everything the same as they did with film, only now you don't need a motor drive and a magazine back to shoot 1000 pictures.

basically, it seems as if the market has taken a step back from where it was in the early 2000s. (DSLRs were ridiculously expensive then, so quality compacts could be had, and design was more imaginative than yet another small metallic box).

i really hope that sigma's DP-1 is a success. however, i think that with the slow lens and the foveon sensor it isn't going to deliver the results that people who would buy an APS sensor compact will demand.


RE: Not a bad price
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/24/2007 2:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agreed on the design department.
All of the consumer class digicams look almost the same, and pictures taken by them all look usually awful (but hey, they can get you 7mp pictures which you can confidently resize all the way down to 3mp so that they start looking better)

I've seen pictures taken by those fashion sony 7mp (the T series?), funny body coloured cameras that are not cheap at all for what they are, and they certainly look noisy and blurred at 100%, and that's with good light. About low light shots, well... get ready to photoshop'em up if you want them to look any good at all.


RE: Not a bad price
By Oregonian2 on 7/24/2007 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Totally agreed on the design department.


I don't agree. Vast majority of these cameras are instamatic replacements. Designs are fine for that market which is probably at least 80% of the camera market. My wife's 3 year old 5 MP P&S makes magnificent 4x6 prints. It's not like one never saw a film camera (that these are replacing) that looked grainy, fuzzy, and with muddy shadows.

The "film" in digital cameras is different, but lens optics still run by the same rules as a century ago and still have to be made dirt-cheap for the consumer market. At least most of 'em don't have plastic lenses like most of the istamatics used have I recall. Mass market used to have that disc-film format. Every one of those I saw were really low res and really fuzzy, much like a $20 digital camera does now.

It's a good goal to have magnificent weakness-free quality in low-end consumer cameras, but I don't have expectations of that being achieved soon.


RE: Not a bad price
By Netscorer on 7/24/2007 4:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
So, you basically wish that DSLRs were still expensive? Remember, there was once a 'prosumer' category that had generally descent lenses, fast response and advanced faetures but they were totally killed once Canon released its DRebel in sub $1000 range.
Because DRebel could do anything the prosumer camera could plus had better sensor, even more controls and changeable lenses.


RE: Not a bad price
By xsilver on 7/24/2007 8:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
what?
where does it say I wish DSLR's were more expensive.
I just like every other consumer wish they were cheaper of course.

but wishing does not make it so and I said I suspect that the manufacturers could afford to price them lower but wont because the price is already starting to infringe on their own midrange products.
eg. why buy a canon S5 IS when you can get a DSLR for less than $100 more?


RE: Not a bad price
By Netscorer on 7/24/2007 9:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
I am sorry. I probably used the wrong analogy here. What I meant to say is that current lack of variety in digicam market is a direct result of price erosion and commoditization of cameras in the past 3 years. It is very difficult for manufacturers to design, produce and sell many cameras in the same price segment. Look at the demise of once proud camera houses like Konica, Minolta, Kodak, Epson, Leica and many others.
I used to own a prosumer (Minolta A1), but switched to DSLR (Canon 20D) and could not be happier. I still own a small pocket camera for those moments when I don't feel like lagging a real camera with me. But every time I load pictures from it, I regret that they just don't offer that same smoothiness and at the same time sharpness that pictures made by DSLR have.


RE: Not a bad price
By Oregonian2 on 7/25/2007 6:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at the demise of once proud camera houses like Konica, Minolta, Kodak, Epson, Leica and many others.


Konica-Minolta lives on partially as part of Sony, but yes they're gone. Leica AFAIK isn't in demise and still is around in their tiny high-end niche excepting that they get a LOT more publicity now with their names on consumer digital camera lenses. Kodak, yes "demising" and going fabless.

But Epson (what my posting is really about). Were they ever a "proud camera house"? I've been in photography since the 1960's and I don't recall them ever making any cameras at all. Was their heyday before then? I don't remember them even from a collector's standpoint (I like Praktica's for no good reason).


Looks interesting
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/24/2007 9:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
If it starts at a wide end of 28mm, it probably has a larger than normal sensor, which would be good, noisewise.

I usually like Panasonic cameras' feature set, but reviews always take me back from buying one because of the noise.
Maybe they will be able to improve on the noise department this time, though the 8mp sensor leads me to think that noise reduction coming from a slightly bigger sensor could be easily offset by the higher resolution.
I'll have to wait and see reviews on this one.
Buy now, my s6000fd with an attached raynox dcr250 macro lens is serving me brilliantly, I'm very happy with the ability to take ISO 800 RAW night shots and not having to downsize the image too much to get it great looking.




RE: Looks interesting
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/24/2007 9:58:10 AM , Rating: 3
Here is a "PR Preview" http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072402panasoni...

It states in the specs that the sensor is 1/2.5", so I wouldn't be too prone to believe that noise will be significantly reduced, or, to say it otherwise, I believe that its noise reduction algorithms will have quite a bit of work to do.
They even talk about "better noise suppression algorithms blah blah"... I don't want better noise handling, I'd just like sensors and lenses with less noise without having to afford SLR prices, even if that means having a "low" resolution :(


RE: Looks interesting
By Oregonian2 on 7/25/2007 5:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Might point out that you might not really want what you say. The standard small'ish sensor used for DSLRs (APS-C) is about 372 sq mm. The 1/2.5 sensor is about 25 sq mm. A ratio of nearly 15. So, for that 1/2.5 sensor to have the low noise density same as an 8 MP DSLR, it would have to be a 0.5 Megapixel camera. This is what you want? IMO that'd be very bad -- only slightly better than the old VGA resolution cameras (which I had one of, a Fuji camera) and that's awful resolution!


RE: Looks interesting
By KorruptioN on 7/24/2007 11:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting because the Olympus SP-550UZ also has a similar 28-504mm lens. If this Panasonic and the Olympus share similar lenses, then it is safe to say that output at 504mm will be horribly soft.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp550uz/


RE: Looks interesting
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/24/2007 2:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that definitely is a bad one for ultra zooms, usually on the longest focal distance things looks too damn soft.
I'd like it better if they kept the max zoom to around 8x and worked on improving overall image quality.

I've seen sony's DSCH9 reviews and for an 8MP camera, it produces too little detail.


RE: Looks interesting
By lumbergeek on 7/24/2007 4:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 550uz, and the long shots at full zoom look ok to me. Of course, a tripod helps that.... ;)


RE: Looks interesting
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/25/2007 9:35:48 AM , Rating: 2
I've said just "usually", obviously there will be some exceptions.
The rule is that most of them yield noticeably softer images at the tele end.
It also depends on what kind of image quality you are willing to settle for.


Not good enough...
By LTG on 7/24/2007 9:49:14 AM , Rating: 4
i'm waiting to buy a camera with 19x zoom, that's the minimum.




By akyp on 7/24/2007 9:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
is the size of the CCD/CMOS. Not listed in this article, this Panasonic has a 1/2.5" CCD, same as all other offerings in this class. A sensor of such a small size is highly prone to purple fringing and excessive noise. Personally I stay away from anything smaller than 1/1.8", which sadly means there aren't too many choices.




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki