|
zakr
Dec 7, 2006, 4:06 AM
Post #1 of 4
(835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2004
Posts: 40
|
Has anyone ever used one of these cameras?
http://www.dpreview.com/...anasonic_dmcfx01.asp
It has a wide angle (28-102mm equivalent) lense.
I have a Canon A620 for higher quality shots, and I want somthing more compact for every day climbing use.
Any suggestions on other wide angle compact point and shoot cameras??
|
|
|
|
|
beefy
Dec 7, 2006, 4:26 AM
Post #2 of 4
(832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2005
Posts: 13
|
got one of these and really happy with it. a few months ago and love it. well built easy to use and the battery lasts for over 400shots in the cold. the wide angle is excellent for climbing shots. good strong body too.
some shots on here from the panasonic.
www.flickr.com/photos/rob_baker/sets/72157594395311745/
the ricoh r4 and 5 are good little cameras too.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Dec 7, 2006, 6:01 AM
Post #3 of 4
(825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
I have the LX1 and the 28mm combined with the 16:9 aspect ratio results in a hell of a wide field of view for a little point-and-shoot. The FX01 with the 4:3 sensor is still decently wide and comparable to other 28mm equivalent P&S digitals by Canon and others.
One big plus of the Panasonic cameras is their speed. Compare lag times and you'll see that Panasonics usually beat out others in their respective classes.
http://www.dpreview.com is an excellent resource for digital camera info...
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Dec 13, 2006, 10:58 PM
Post #4 of 4
(791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
I bought one for my wife before Thanksgiving as a birthday/xmas pres.
I basically bought it because IQ of these d-cams is actually deteriorating with the more MP's they add so despite it's flaws it didn't look any worse then the copetition.
The IQ of this camera is at best OK at ISO200. it's good at ISO80-100. 400 and above it's terrible.
So why I bought it, see above, no cameras look great anymore. I actually bought a 4MP canon G3 because I think the IQ was better in 2003 then today.
Ok other reasons. She wanted a small camera with a large hi resolution screen. Check.
Build Quality. This thing is made in Japan and the same camera (litterally) as the $400 Leica D2 (or something). It's all metal, all the doors and latches are well made. EVerything just feels solid.
The wide angle lens. Very nice. and at the time was the worlds smallest camera (might still be) with a 28mm lens. This was important because along with small size, the camera was going to be a purse camera and a party camera. So parties = tight spaces and tight spaces need a wide angle lens.
Nice burst mode.
Decent flash, use the overall exposure meter to adjust flash output in tight spaces.
Mega OIS. My wife has shaky hands and the optical image stabiliser is a great feature in less then ideal light, especially since I refuse and have "ordered" her to refrain from using ISO 400.
Super crisp high res LCD. 230K pixels. What does that mean. Well most 2.5in LCD's only have 115K pixels so this cameras screen is sharp.
Lets see now the downsides.
NO MANUAL CONTROL. Exposure comp is all you have. It's full program.
poor high ISO performance.
not even a tiny optical view finder (a few years ago I wouldn't have even considered such a camera).
Overall I like it though for what it was intended for. And it's so well built it's a pleasure just to hold and look at. IQ isn't the best, but comparing it to many many many many many other cameras I found few that would meet my requirements. Hence the Canon G3, my 2 DSLR's and my stable of film cameras loaded with Provia or Kodak 100VS,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
