The FZ200 review, coming soon from Michael

[HSway]

Agree, it’s just a tool and interesting one at that.

I shall probably keep the camera because of this advantage for candid shots.

candids and photographic opportunities all-round I imagine.

[mwr]

Michael, your recent review of the Canon SX 50 briefly discussed the Panasonic FZ200 and its f/2.8 25-600mm lens, and said "Otherwise the cameras are quite comparable". Which seems to imply the the IQ from the FZ200 and SX 50 are pretty much the same. But you raved about the SX 50 IQ compared to other super-zooms.

So I'm confused about how you rate the IQ of the FZ200 compared to the SX 50.

I used and enjoyed the FZ200, but in the end decided not to review it. It will make a great travel camera for someone who doesn't have extremely high standards, but in the end it's a small sensor camera with all that that entails in terms of IQ.

Michael

[kim]

I bought an FZ200 as a birthday present for my other half and after several months of use have formed a view of its strengths and weaknesses. She used it for wildlife shots when we visited a local zoo recently and this is its best area. In all the pixel peeping talk it’s easy to forget that this is a little camera which is easy to use and carry around which gives you a fantastic reach. The sort of wildlife shots that were once the preserve of pros with their 600mm lenses can now be taken on an inexpensive camera.  The image stabilisation works very well and combined with the f2.8 aperture allows you to get passable shots even on a dull day. As far as quality goes I won’t pretend that it stands comparison with any EOS model but shooting in raw and processing in LR4 will usually give a pleasing 8 by 12 inch print. The main difficulty is blowing out of the highlights and while LR4 can bring a lot of detail back from a raw it can’t work miracles. When photographing small animals, barrel distortion is not a concern. The noise can be dealt with – up to a point – in LR4 but again can’t compare with any EOS. It’s still a better result than you could get from most types of film.

In comparison her Canon S95 gives cleaner results for shots in the 28 – 100mm (equivalent) range. Think of the FZ200 as a camera for long telephoto shooting .

[David S]

The FZ200 has two advantages (of sorts) over the SX50.
1-the f2.8 stop
2-a much better EVF

and one disadvantage in the the resulting pictures are somewhat better (noise, sharpness) with the SX50 but not in a major way for me.

But I find both of these cameras work well for telephoto shots that can be done with DSLRs but with large and very heavy lens that cost much more than both these cameras combined and weight more that both cameras combined.

My wife finds the FZ200 great for backyard shots using the zoom at 400-600 mm length.

I am still trying the SX50 out and very much like the extra reach for bird shots and can follow birds in flight 75% or more of the time.

Works for me.

Dave S

[Ray]

The FZ200 has two advantages (of sorts) over the SX50.
1-the f2.8 stop
2-a much better EVF

The EVF on the FZ200 was my first experience of EVFs. I don't like it, period. If the EVF on the SX50 is noticeably worse, then that's a huge negative for me.

The big attraction of the SX50 is undoubtedly its 1200mm effective maximum focal length. However, the fact that the maximum aperture at 1200mm is 2 & 1/2 stops down from that of the FZ200 at 600mm equivalent, must have a significant effect on the usefulness of that 1200mm focal length on the SX50.

Even if the camera is on a tripod, all subject movement at 1200mm is magnified to a greater extent than at 600mm. Without a tripod, whether the subject is moving or not, the minimum shutter speed at 1200 for a sharp shot will be double that required at 600mm, assuming that both cameras have equally effective image stabilisation.

Instead of, for example, 1/640th exposure at F2.8, 600mm and ISO 100 with the FZ200, with 1200mm one would need to use 1/1250th at F2.8, and ISO 200, if the image is not static and/or if one doesn't have a tripod

But one doesn't have the option of F2.8 on the SX50, so one would have to use 2 & 1/2 stops higher ISO than ISO 200, which is between ISO 1,000 and ISO 1250.

At such high ISOs the SX50 shot is going to be rather noisy and degraded, which sort of diminishes the advantage of that 1200mm focal length.

I can't say the SX50 particularly excites me, but it would be interesting to see some comparisons between the FZ200 at F2.8, 600mm and ISO 100, and the SX50 at 1200mm, F6.5 and ISO 1250.

Another issue, of course, is the accuracy of the Canon nominated ISOs on the SX50. DXOMark have not provided test results for the FZ200 yet (rather slack of them), but the DXO tests for the FZ200's predecessor, the FZ150, show a remarkable match with Panasonic's nominated ISOs. They're 'spot on', implying that Panasonic are using the same standard as DXO.

If Canon are not using the same standard, the meaningful comparison might be between a 600mm shot at ISO 100, with the FZ200, and a 1200mm shot at ISO 1600 with the SX50.

[KirbyKrieger]

Michael, your recent review of the Canon SX 50 briefly discussed the Panasonic FZ200 and its f/2.8 25-600mm lens, and said "Otherwise the cameras are quite comparable". Which seems to imply the the IQ from the FZ200 and SX 50 are pretty much the same. But you raved about the SX 50 IQ compared to other super-zooms.

So I'm confused about how you rate the IQ of the FZ200 compared to the SX 50.

Excellent question, imho.  I am shopping for one of these (or similar) for my wife, and wondered the exact same thing.  To put it finely, in the review Michael says:

"Otherwise [after discussing the wider available apertures on the Panasonic] the cameras are quite comparable", but in this thread Michael says

" ... but in the end it's [the Panasonic FZ200] a small sensor camera with all that that entails in terms of IQ."

If the camera's are comparable _in IQ_ , one can't have exceptional IQ while the other one is a third-grader's b-flat clarinet.  Perhaps we are mis-reading the "Otherwise" statement.  Perhaps Michael means in terms of functionality, not in terms of IQ.

Michael?

[Ray]

I'm reluctant to speak for Michael on this issue, but I think it is clear that both sensors, the FZ200 and the SX-50, are equally small and therefore both share the same disadvantages that are a limitation of all small sensors.

However, given this equal limitation regarding sensor size, there are other features of both cameras which are different, but very remarkable in their own way.

A 600mm/F2.8 lens is phenomenal, but a 1200mm/F6.5 lens might be considered even more phenomenal. It depends on your shooting style.

If you're in the habit of shooting static subjects (or relatively static, or slow moving subjects) on a sturdy tripod, then a 12mp image from a 1200mm lens should produce impressive results, even though the sensor is a bit small.

However, if one is in the habit of shooting static and/or moving subjects hand-held, or fast-moving subjects whether or not using a tripod, then the maximum f/stop of F6.5 could be a significant disadvantage. The final result may be no better, or only marginally better, than a cropped and interpolated FZ200 image at 600mm, F2.8 and ISO 100.

I recall about 15 years ago when I was getting interested in photography again, as a result of the digital revolution, I was amazed that Canon was offering a 1200mm F5.6 lens for full frame 35mm format, at the price of a small house in Australia at the time.

This lens was not available over the counter, but was manufactured only to fulfil specific orders from individual customers. I can't remember the exact price, but it was around the $100,000 mark, 15 years ago.

The fact that today a 1200mm F6.5 lens, which is only 1/2 a stop slower than F5.6, can be had for less than $500, and at a small fraction of the weight of the Canon 1200/5.6, is a remarkable technological achievement, even if the final result is not as good as that 16kg Canon lens attached to an 11mp 1Ds.

Just how much worse the 12mp image from the SX-50 would be, compared with the same scene from the 16.5Kg Canon lens with the Canon 1Ds which is close to 12mp, would be interesting to see.

By the way, having just compared the Canon 1Ds with the Panasonic FZ150 on the DXOMark site, I see that the DR of the FZ150 (which is presumably no better than the DR of the FZ200 which DXO have not tested yet, and likely worse) is equal to that of the Canon 1Ds at base ISO. All other measurements for the 1Ds are much better, of course, including the DR at higher-than-base ISOs. But the fact that the DR at base ISO from such a small sensor, (DR being essentially shadow noise in an ETTR exposure), is equal to that from a multi-thousand dollar, full-frame 35mm sensor of just a few years ago, is quite remarkable.

What is also interesting is that the ISO sensitivities for the Canon 1Ds and the Panasonic FZ150 are almost exactly the same, and both conform almost exactly to DXO's interpretation of the ISO standard. Amazing!

[KirbyKrieger]

Ray -- a belated thanks for your helpful and informative answer 

Cheers,
Kirby.

[Ray]

Ray -- a belated thanks for your helpful and informative answer 

Cheers,
Kirby.

Hey! Thanks for the thanks. It's nice to have one's efforts appreciated sometimes.