alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

FWIW. I have the very vintage LUMIX DMC-FZ15 (c2005) which has the same faux-SLR appearance as the DMC-FZ200.

Of course, I was pretty delighted with it when I first got it ...

.....Nice Controls ...

.....Loved the now-primitive EVF ...

.....Good 6mm-72mm 12x zoom (35mm-420mm equivalent) lens with a little finger's nail size sensor ...

I presume that due to the vintage, the FZ15 preceded the APS sized sensors. It is not clear to me what size senosr the FZ200 has -- perhaps, it's still a comparatively minuscule sensor.

The complaints which I have are:

* some pin-cushioning is evident when the zoom's wide angle aspect is used and a known-to-be horizontal-or-vertical line is not crossing the middle of the frame

* the front of the lens is NOT threaded to accept normal filters/hoods/etc.

* AFAIK, semi-close-up images are not possible without a close up lens ... I can zoom in on an object, but the lens won't focus when on the optically magnfied object) so, the close image size capability is probably about the equivalent to what one can get with a standard 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR camera whose close focusing limit is of about 18" ...

.....ediesaul has demonstrated that the FZ200 can focus more closely than my vintage FZ15 can ...

* it is seemingly tedious to change the exposure (this could definitely be due to MY ignorance of the camera's controls which is undoubtedly due to my acceptance of the camera's automatic exposure 99% of the time!!!) ...

.....Perhaps, this has also been resolved sometime in the past 10 years!

Most of the limitations are undoubtedly due to the vintage of my camera's integrated, auto-focusing lens AND my inability to work around them ... out of ignorance, I will suggest that some of the limitations which I have encountered (other than the pin cushioning & lack of a threaded front) are the same that I anticipate that I might nonetheless encounter with almost any autofocus lens on a high-zoot DSLR (or, not!?!).

The bottom line is that I would say that the FZ200 is probably a very good for many types of picture taking as long as one does not feel that the few, stated obstacles which I cited will also be obstacles for the prospective user.

BTW. My current use-most-of-the-time digital camera is an m4/3 body + a prime lens designed for a full frame 35mm camera which I can (must!) focus manually and whose aperture I can (must!!) adjust manually.

OKsprat Loc: Oklahoma

I love my Canon SX50. Bought it from Canon website refurbished for $229. Zooms to a max that I can't handhold but low light ability good. This was a big upgrade from 35mm for this beginner.

Coolcameragirl Loc: Bradenton, FL

I own a Canon 5dmkII, a Canon7d, and a Lumix FZ200 for when I don't want to carry the big stuff. I took this pic with the FZ200 a couple weeks ago on the beach in FL. I am definitely please with it - bought it in January of this year.

(Download)

Orca Loc: Little Egg Harbor, NJ USA

The FZ200 does come with a lens hood and the lens is threaded to take
52mm filters. Micro shots are not that hard with this camera. Regarding Macro, check with You Tube Macro Photography with Panasonic FZ200.
Not a large sensor but I have made many 13x19" prints that I am proud to display. the photos with this camera have been on the front page of our community paper many times. The majority of the other cover shots have been taken with someone 10x's better then me using a Nikon D800. The camera does take VG photos for a bridge camera. IMO

DollyLanna

I have the Cannon sx30 and have had the sx10. Love the ease of use and the lens variation. The quality is not like the Nikon D90
But can't beat it for a walk around ( lite weight and small ) camera.

wolfd Loc: Vancouver, Canada

I have the FZ200 and am very happy with the image quality.
The constant f2.8 600mm equiv. zoom is great for poorly lit situations.

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

I use the Nikon P7800 and I've been very, very happy with the results. Here's a good site for comparing cameras:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-Coolpix-P7800-versus-Panasonic-LUMIX-DMC-FZ200___908_818

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

My brother and sister both use Nikon bridge cameras. My brother has received a number of awards in photo shows (in print no one knows if you used a bridge or DSLR if you enlarge to 8x10).

I like enlarging to 11x14, so I don't think a bridge camera would work for me.

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

Thanks ...

Obviously, someone at Panasonic must have realized some of the limitations which I cited as soon as those early generations of FZxxx cameras left the loading docks ...

BTW/errata. The "slight pin-cushioning" which I noted should have read "(very) slight barrel distortion" ...

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

always leave a space after leaving a link.. you have added a {.} period to the link. if you click on the link remove the period , and it will go to the link!! if not it goes to "error"

kemo Loc: Tampa, FL

I have a Sony 400 v and the processing speed is atrocious. Fastest card on the planet but to no avail. The "Processing" message appears after every shot.... every shot .... regardless of camera setting. Burst mode is worse by a magnitude. Tried it with no memory card installed at all and still get the message. It makes an otherwise terrific camera useless in some situations and annoying in all situations.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

If you like to sit by your computer and focus in on individual pixels the DSLR is great but a Hasse is even better. However, if you print 8X10 or smaller you cannot tell which camera shot what.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Di

Here is the math you need to change your mind: Normal print viewing distance is the diagonal length of the print. At that distance, *up to 8x12 inches*, you need 240-250 original, in-camera captured pixels spread over each inch of the print. For example, an 8x10 needs to begin life with 2000 x 2500 or more pixels. That's only 5 MP! An 11x14 needs 2750 x 3500 pixels by the same rule. Almost all bridge cameras capture a lot more data than that. It can be argued that 11x14s don't even need that much data...

Where people need more sensor area --- not necessarily more pixels, just bigger sensor sites --- is in low light. Larger sensors can suck in more photons per site, providing better signal-to-noise ratio and better high ISO results. But in good light, 11x14 is no problem for most bridge cameras.

Wes97068 Loc: Portland Oregon

I use a Sony DSC RX100 and am very satisfied with it. Small enough to fit in the pocket of my jeans and with it's 1" square sensor you can even get night shots without a tripod, though I generally try to find a convenient light post or fence to steady it.

Wes

Orca Loc: Little Egg Harbor, NJ USA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
13x19" no problems