Fast Zoom: What you need to know about Panasonic's Lumix DMC-FZ300

LOL :)

I am still trying to figure out where many shots I took pre-GPS were taken. GPS on a travel camera is a must, and super-zooms are by definition travel-cameras.

Virtually every cloud service has had mapping features for years now, and the new Google Photos Stories are really great for presenting a narrative travel story.

I will never buy another travel camera without a good GPS implementation.

This Panasonic is for the over 90 category, I guess....

"Total Light" is NOT APPLICABLE .... to "exposure-settings".

What matters is the final exposure-settings and the FACT is that f/5.6 will require a slower shutter-speed than f/2.8.

DOF may be equivalent, but that is less important to a typical user of this type of camera.

Well yes but with the Canon you can just increase the ISO 2 stops and still have more or less the same noise levels.(If sensor technology = equal)

So in the end there isn't much in it. Apart from Canon's ridiculous price-tag and lack of internal viewfinder.

The latter is kinda a big issue at mm equiv.

FZ1000 costs similar money to teh 150-600 (which opens only to f6.3 at 600mm). I was trying to highlight the capabilities of each option for you comparatively if all you cared about was reach. You make some big assumptions comparing across cameras like that but diffraction at a focal length is only related to physical aperture (not fstop directly) and pixel pitch so it makes a decent measuring stick.

I'm not saying the 150-600 meets ayn size requirements but it's cost considering you can use it with your existing camera is not comparatively out of range. If you're not willing to carry around a bigger piece of glass than the zoom going to 270mm APS-C you already have you're not going to get noticeably more reach.

If they say they go to 2000mm, that has nothing to do with reach. A single pixel at 10,000mm is actually pretty crappy reach. Reach is a figure of a diffraction free resolution at a given focal length. Equivalent focal length isn't everything.

The FZ300 is really a 108mm lens. You call it 600 because you're equivalence it. To do that you also need to equivalence the fact that 12mp isn't much detail by today's standards and 1/2.33" sensors don't cover much area.

Your T2i with a F6 270mm lens HAS MORE REACH THAN AN FZ300!

A LOT more.

I'm not clear on how one figures "diffraction free resolution," nor on the relation between actual focal length, sensor size, and equivalent focal length. But I think what you are saying, as a practical matter, is that I can get 'closer' with the Tamron true 270mm (which I'm told is 'equivalent' to maybe 400mm) than with the FZ300's true 108mm (600 equivalent) because I can crop the resulting image and still end up with more detail.

That's an interesting point, which I've seen before of course, and largely ignored because it means spending time in post-production (cropping, at a minimum), which up to now, as basically a point-and-shooter, I've avoided. But it's certainly an alternative way to go, and does make use of my existing kit (though I was hoping to reduce size and weight somewhat).

/Mr Lynn

@knine, yes I agree with you. You can either quote actual focal length and actual aperture OR equivalent focal length and equivalent aperture. But you can't pick and choose which figures to quote just to make it sound better.

"you need to read that article again."

Which one is THAT one?

@ Francis Carver, you need to read the thread again

Yeah, right. A few photos of a camera passed of as an "article" or "review?" Please... Youll probably learn a lot more by going on to the mfr's product site online.

You obviously haven't got a clue what we're talking about. I'm referring to the article that lightcatcher quoted which would be obvious if you actually bothered reading through the thread. He quoted an article which directly contradicts the point he was trying to make. The fact that 4 people like his comment just shows that there are a lot of people here like you who are completely unable to comprehend the english language.

Yeah, the "article" is apparently to be read by telepathy or something.

When you click on the photos and cyctle through them, you cycle through the photos. How is one to know that when you do this, the clever webmaster actually cycles through some text as well and at the same time?

You see, and at least on a horizontally widescreen 16:9 monitor, you can either see the pictures... or you can see the text below the pictures. But never the two at the same time. See?

At least DPR could have provided some cutting edge instructions as to how to "read" this thing, and others like it, you know? But maybe the resident webmaster figures that everyone is reading these things exclusively on a vertically positioned iPhone instead of a real LCD monitor, I dunno. Maybe that way you can see the pix and the text belo is at the same time. Unfortunately, I cannot position my desktop monitor in a vertical position.

That about wraps up the thorny issue at hand, I suppose.

@greynerd: your attach on DPR, saying it is not a serious site, is unwarranted. I think it has all the makings of a good site.
And your argument that it takes sh!tty sensors so other can brag about fullframe is just inconsequential. NO ONE IS BRAGGING HERE! the post was intended to shake some sense into some (some need it more than others) and to publicly expose manufacturers for still feeding us junk. If you don't want quality, go talk to the clerk at walmart - I am sure he/she will give you plenty of insightful advice that you are perfectly OK with.

@ludwick123:
if you read my entire post, you would realize that I am not excluding super-zooms with the SAME type of zoom range (~10-24X) but have a larger sensor, like the ones using a 1" type sensor. You however, are not investigating to discover the existence of those.

thank you davec150,

You should not comment on a road you have not yet travelled.

Until then, you are only displaying your ignorance and frustration, and completely missing the whole point of the conversation. It seems like it is way over your head.

@Timmbits
Deep down, you must love these cameras. If you really really hated these cameras, you wouldn't bother reading articles about them. Let alone posting long comments on these articles and then coming back to post replies to your comments made by others.

@ludwik123 & Greynerd: x2, absolutely.

I get an email telling me I got a reply.
It's not like I hang out here, in this thread, to read posts from ignorant, pretentious, arrogant, newbies, who still have a lot to experience.

The OP was intended as a service to you all, and to shame the manufacturers who take you all for idiots. You're only proving them right!

Oh where do I start with this one, lol.
Hmmm.... how 'bout we just drop down to the bit about DPR being a "serious" website - that should better educate neophytes about this or that..

Tell me please that you have read the other 39,412,242 forum posts and have at least a shred of knowledge as to the history of this site. You do remember Phil Askey right? You of course are well aware of just how influential DPR has been since it's inception in 1997?

For the record, I've owned many DSLR's from Sony, Minolta, Fujifilm, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Panasonic. And ya know what? I like this camera! I guess that makes me out of touch 'eh?

Or maybe.... JUST MAYBE... there are different cameras made for very different uses and users.

Oh, and if I wasn't mistaken... I do believe I saw a whole display of "BIG" (grin) sensor cameras at of all places Walmart. So surely DPR ought to drop the reviews of those cameras immediately, right?

One day you will buy a better camera, and when going through your old pictures from tiny-sensor cameras, will understand the difference. You will also understand how your vehement responses made you look noobishly ignorant.

you are a close minded person, many who admire this camera ( including me ) already have ASP-C and Fullframe cameras... or you are a troll... so?

I do not believe you. you wouldn't write such masses of insults and provocations if you were not a troll yourself and knew what you were talking about. you don't get to silence everyone just because you bought this model.

I am sorry to see so many of you with a chip on your shoulder.
Giving advice is not calling you stupid. You need to understand the difference. Of course, there will always be the immature who don't take advice from those who already went down that exact same path, and were in the exact same spot. Please act more adult-like and have more respect for those trying to help you.

What exactly is digital image stabilisation?
I had one cheap camera where its method of digital stabilisation was to choose a higher shutter speed via a higher iso value.

For bird ID perhaps,but not any feather detail or tracking BIF.
I can get equiv 945mm with Pentax 150-450+1.4 TC on APSC or 1260 equiv on Nikon 1

Rumor=rumor=rumor

I know but the rumor is quite well founded. As it came from an insider at the factory. And honestly? If it were to be true I would get it as a travel camera. 25-400mm

Yes gkdiamond - it does - realistically it is between the 300 and 1000 - I'd love to hear opinions the 1000 has a better sensor, but shorter focal length. The 300 has the 2.8 throughout. If price were not the issue, which would most choose and why? Will the 1000 provide THAT much of an upgrade in IQ for what you "lose"?
Sony RX 10 II sounds great but my last 3
cameras have been Pannys

I say the FZ1000, the extra resolution (MP) and likely resolving power should compensate for the extra telephoto of the FZ300 and the extra stop at the long end. The FZ300 has some kind of weather resistance though, but other than that, price not being a concern, the FZ1000 would be a decent upgrade. RX10 is nice too and I think it would be worth at least trying both, I personally prefer the direct controls of the RX10 and the mag alloy body, but thats a much more personal preference.

Size weight and price of the FZ300 can be advantages over the FZ1000 too, in addition to weather sealing.

For qualitative reviews on the the FZ1000 visit cameraergonomics.blogspot.com.au. That author loves it.

So did I...

http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/2014/12/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000-review.html

I would say the FZ300 or the FZ1000 - the improved EVF alone for the FZ300 fixes a long held flaw in the FZ series.

Yep, :) big EVF's are here to stay.

tks :)

Phillips relax they report what they are told

"Phillips relax they report what they are told"

DPR also likes to extrapolate. We heard the "it's 12MP, so it must be the same old" from DPR many times before.

From the past Panasonic product launches, the info about sensor was/is never part of the marketing materials given to the reviewers and testers.

Ok don't relax, blow up with anger. Ill get the popcorn ready.

Panasonic is going down started from LX100, after peaked @LX7 and FZ200.

Pana was a good P&S camera maker. Too bad to see it going down model by model...

P&S = cell phone.

Look and open the link:

http://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/lumix-point-and-shoot-cameras?srule=featured#

Or open the Link to see how many different type of amerces.

http://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras#

Thanks Jeff, can't get any more sure than that :)

http://www.cameraegg.org/panasonic-fz300-vs-fz1000-specs-comparison/

Here Cameraegg stated that FZ300 has 1inch sensor just like FZ1000.

That clearly must be a mistake.

If they had the same size sensor then the FZ1000 would be smaller and lighter, because it has a smaller zoom range. But the reverse is true.

I don´t think the sensor is exactly the same: specs for fz200, says: CMOS, for the fz300 says: BSI-CMOS, does that make any difference??

Is not what I ve said. I fact I ve sold the Pany. But is really portable and always handy. What cheaper tele can get more light than ISO 400 f/2.8?? At f/5.9 you need ISO1600 an that's a lot ISO for apsc DSLR just as workable as ISO 800 in a FZ..

FZ200 at ISO 400 doesn't look better than say an A6000 at ISO1600 imho. I'd pick the APS-C at ISO1600 honestly. The APS-C lens will likely be a bit sharper before diffraction limit too.

In terms of scene mode, Panasonic FZ200/LX7 have "Through glass" mode which may not be seeing in other brand P&S cameras.