Lumix dmc fz200
Nov 15, 2023 02:56:17 #
Nov 15, 2023 10:07:19 #
R.G. wrote:
It's never a good sign when you see things going from worse to worser 
.
.?????
Nov 15, 2023 10:29:57 #
Nov 15, 2023 10:31:30 #
Wingpilot wrote:
Essentially is the FZ200, updated with a better EVF and rear screen, better AF, and allowing image stabilization to work in the digital zoom mode. I was frustrated with my FZ200 because IS stopped working when I would enter digital zoom. I believer there were some changes with the controls. And it retained the f.2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range.
Since it appears the fz200 & fz300 are, I believe, close in size & weight, what did you think of the fz200 in terms of size & weight compared to a d7000 or d7500 with medium zoom lenses? I have both with a Tamron 18-270 on one & Nikon 18-300 on the other. Both perform well but a bit bulky to carry sometimes when I would prefer a smaller & lighter combo such as for street photography or museums but with some good reach. Currently using a Nikon d5500 with a Nikon 18-140 for street photography which does well, but lacks the reach in case you happen to see something like nesting birds. I know there are some great cameras out there that could also do the job maybe better but at a considerably higher price that, with possible expensive treatment on my back & neck looming in near future, are not presently feasible. BTW; you live in an area that must be great for photography.
Nov 15, 2023 10:37:02 #
R.G. wrote:
It's never a good sign when you see things going from worse to worser .
.It a matter of degree:
Worse
Worser
More Worser
Worstest
Most Worstest
Toadally Zuxazz
The lattermostest is verrrrrry strictly reserved for either Canon or Nikon, depending on which one the accuser is NOT using.
Nov 15, 2023 10:37:35 #
Nov 15, 2023 10:43:59 #
whatdat wrote:
Since it appears the fz200 & fz300 are, I beli... (show quote)
If you sell one of your camera/lens combos you might have enough to get a second hand Sony RX10. If 200mm (FF equiv) is enough for you, get an RX10 II. If you want 600mm equiv, get a Mk iii or later.
Nov 15, 2023 10:51:13 #
R.G. wrote:
Sorry, that must be one of my worserest jokes on UHH .
.But UHH is definitely the most bestest venue to try them out. We hafta respect our Most Sacredest Traditions. So keep on keepin on.
Nov 15, 2023 12:27:13 #
User ID wrote:
But UHH is definitely the most bestest venue to try them out. We hafta respect our Most Sacredest Traditions. So keep on keepin on.
I'd hate to see my woserestness deteriorate due to lack of use.
Nov 15, 2023 20:34:54 #
JacksonHD
Loc: NorCal
TommiRulz wrote:
.. My favorite inexpensive, long range, easy camera is the Sony HX 80. 30x zoom. ... the photo quality is amazing for a 1/2.3 sensor camera.
i agree. Excelent for the size and price.Nov 15, 2023 20:56:02 #
If you are price-conscious, and don't care about quality, go ahead. However, Panasonic is not worth it.
Otherwise, look at other brands.
Overall, a few extra bucks is better spent.
The lower-priced Nikon and Canon basic models are far better value than Panasonic "cheapies."
Otherwise, look at other brands.
Overall, a few extra bucks is better spent.
The lower-priced Nikon and Canon basic models are far better value than Panasonic "cheapies."
Nov 16, 2023 04:24:55 #
If you can't find a Sony that you can afford, try looking HERE for alternatives.
If you haven't been put off Panasonic (I've had more than one perfectly good Panasonic camera) and you want more zoom range you might find a second hand FZ1000 or FZ2000 that's acceptable.
If you haven't been put off Panasonic (I've had more than one perfectly good Panasonic camera) and you want more zoom range you might find a second hand FZ1000 or FZ2000 that's acceptable.
Nov 16, 2023 08:21:14 #
LXK0930
Loc: Souh Jersey
whatdat wrote:
If I remember correctly, the fz300 does not have the constant aperture. $75 on the fz200. That was a bargain. I guess you’re not selling it.
GOOD GUESS!
Nov 16, 2023 12:11:53 #
whatdat wrote:
Since it appears the fz200 & fz300 are, I beli... (show quote)
I went from the FZ200 to a Nikon D7200 with an 18-140 zoom lens. It was substantially heavier than the FZ200. The FZ was lighter and handled well, and seemed pretty well balanced. My only complaints were the focusing problems at the far end of the zoom range, dim EVF and rear screen and loss of IS in the digital zoom range. All of these were fixed with the FZ300. Another choice. You might consider another choice, and that is the Nikon P950. It is a true super zoom bridge camera and offers both JPEG and RAW modes of capture. It’s not real light, but it is lighter than a DSLR with a lens. It has great focusing and IS, although, like all super zooms, it tends to hunt for focus at times when zoomed out. I had the P900 and although it zooms to 2000mm, eq., I rarely zoomed it out that far. I mention this camera as it’s newer technology than the FZ200 and 300.
And yes, we have some great scenery up here.
Nov 16, 2023 19:34:13 #
Wingpilot wrote:
I went from the FZ200 to a Nikon D7200 with an 18-... (show quote)
Appreciate the reply. I do have a Nikon p900 besides my DSLR’s. I use it occasionally to good effect except at maximum range as you mentioned. I presently use my older d5500 with an 18-140 as well for general purpose for its lighter weight than my d7500 or d7000 with longer zooms. But when traveling I always have that & one of my d7xxx series cameras with me. Since, to get longer range, I noticed the fz200 & 300 as something that would get me a little more range than my other zoom lenses w/o needing to set up my tripod. The Nikon 200/500 is a really good lens as well as a couple of competing lenses, but would require at my age to use a tripod to steady it as well as cost more. Thought the Lumix might be a compromise alternative. Maybe I’ll just need to save until I can afford the longer zoom lense. Again, thanks for the response.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.