dmc-fh24k vs dmc-fh25k There are a ton of reviews for the FH25K, and only one for the FH24K. It also seems that only the 24K is available on Amazon - can anyone tell me if there is any difference between the two as I don't seem to be able to work it out going through the specs?Camera Novice dmc-fh24k vs dmc-fh25k There are a ton of reviews for the FH25K, and only one for the FH24K. It also seems that only the 24K is available on Amazon - can anyone tell me if there is any difference... » Read More dmc-fh24k vs dmc-fh25k There are a ton of reviews for the FH25K, and only one for the FH24K. It also seems that only the 24K is available on Amazon - can anyone tell me if there is any difference between the two as I don't seem to be able to work it out going through the specs?Camera Novice « Show Less
614264
Can't find anything on it myself....no apparent difference BUT did find the 25 on jr.com for 99 and free shipping.
614265
According to the manual, the dmc-fh25k includes an A/V cable to playback video, while dmc-fh24k does not. The A/V cable is listed as an accessory for the dmc-fh24k. Other than that, the specifications and operational instructions are identical.
614266
A link said the FH24K was available for $99.00 as a replacement for the FH25K, but when taking the link, no such price appears. What to do? And here it says $149.95??
614267
Hmmm. Puzzled. Why fh25k is costing less, $107, than fh24k, $139? It should be the other way.
614268
http://reviews.bestbuy.com/answers/3545/product/2433169/panasonic-lumix-fh25-16-1-megapixel-digital-camera-blue-questions-answers/questions.htmAccording to Panasonic Answers, on the bb forum, the camera is identical with the main difference being the A/V cable and which retailer carries the product. Amazon often compares prices with other retailers, so the FH25k might be cheaper due to a competitor that carries the FH25K and fewer competitors carry the FH24K. Note that Amazon ran the 24K as a gold box item earlier at $99.99.
614269
I ordered it on Monday for $99. I'll update what's in the box when I get it, hopefully later this week.
2073936
I just read your posting and it has been a month since you put it up so I don't know if your still interested in a comparison, so I will keep it brief. I got the X100 in July and the S95 a year ago but by coincidence I just took some test shots in the back yard this morning to compare the two as I will be using both at a BBQ on Sunday. The S95 looks good until you see it next to the x100. The X100 is the first digital camera I have owned where the photos look a bit more real than the other digital cameras I have used. I also have a Nikon D7000 and did some test shots while on vacation using it and the Nikon 12-24mm lens ( set at 23mm) and the X100 looks better, sharper than the $1000 Nikon12-24 lens. There are some down sides as is mentioned on many websites, but you can get used to them, or at least I did. On the video, I like the S95 by far as it is easier to get usable footage. The X100 is sharper and cleaner by a little bit, but the focus is not as good as the S95. The X100 is a great camera for what it is, and I really like mine.
1672482
Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6... » Read More Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan « Show Less
1192315
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise.Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.
2087729
I actually tried the HF S200 and was disappointed with its low light performance, so I returned it and placed an order for the HF M400. I don't need all of the bells and whistles, and still photos are not a requirement for me for a video camera. I think their logic in using the pro sensor makes sense. I got the same response when I asked Canon. If you compare them side by side though, the only thing the HF M400 is missing is some of the manual controls, the ability to take high-quality still photos, and a larger display. Other than that, for pure video quality and low light performance, the HF M400 should come out on top (I hope). I actually tried the HF S200 and was disappointed with its low light performance, so I returned it and placed an order for the HF M400. I don't need all of the bells and whistles, and still photos are not a requirement for me for a video camera. I think their logic in using the pro sensor makes sense. I got the same response when I asked Canon. If you compare them side by side though, the only thing the HF M400 is missing is some of the manual controls, the ability to take high-quality still photos, and a larger display. Other than that, for pure video quality and low light... » Read More I actually tried the HF S200 and was disappointed with its low light performance, so I returned it and placed an order for the HF M400. I don't need all of the bells and whistles, and still photos are not a requirement for me for a video camera. I think their logic in using the pro sensor makes sense. I got the same response when I asked Canon. If you compare them side by side though, the only thing the HF M400 is missing is some of the manual controls, the ability to take high-quality still photos, and a larger display. Other than that, for pure video quality and low light performance, the HF M400 should come out on top (I hope). « Show Less
1203850
yep. I am going to amend my advice and recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8. This gets excellent reviews and is faster than the others for low light shooting such as UW. I shot with the 10-24 such subjects as a gilded church. It came out spectacular. All in all, if money is not an issue, it is a tossup between the nikon and tokina. I switched to fx format and now use the nikon 12-24. It's a monster. BTW, another great option for the Nikon DX is the great 18-200 zoom.
515664
Thank you so much for taking the time to help me out...I appreciate it.I am leaning towards getting the fz40....it is $50 more but will ship in one day free from amazon...the fz35 is shipping from adorama in one day at a charge...My husband is showing me a flyer with the Nikon L110 for $179...really don't want that one....lolThanks again!
1448985
Thanks for the input and advice. I'm new to high-end(expensive) digital camera market. I realized after I posted this question that the camera is sold out or otherwise unavailable now and it could take a month or two to get one even if I ordered today. I'll definitely look into buying one in the next few months.
1647032
There is a webpage discussing the difference between FZ 200 and FZ 200K. See link:http://versus.com/en/panasonic-dmc-fz200k-vs-panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200
1850587
You can find a full list of features in the link below. I didn't look into all the details but it appears that the only two differences are: 1. The lens: 5x optical zoom for the FH6 Vs. 4x optical zoom for the FH4, and the FH6 has a Leica DC Vario-Summarit which I believe is supposed to be better than the DC Vario lens of the FH4. Finally the FH6 is Ultra Wide angle (24mm) while the FH4 is only Wide Angle (28mm) which means the FH6 captures a bit more (or wider) photos than the FH4 2. The FH6 has a burst mode of 10 frames per second (at 3 megapixel resolution) while nothing is mentioned about the burst mode for the FH4. Both of them can do continuous capture at full resolution at 1.5 frame per second. Please note that I just did a quick look, double check in case there is another feature that is important to you that differs between the two cameras. Here's the link http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/pressrelease/first_half_new_production2012/
1134717
I am torn between these exact same two camcorders also. Looking forward to your follow-up post!
1977272
blanchedebeaulieu, The FH20 is a much newer camera with more developed technology. The number of megapixels has little to do with the quality of the camera or the pictures from the camera. The size (and quality) of the sensor are far more important and I believe each of these cameras has the same sensor. With the FH20 you'd be getting a newer camera, with greater zoom, new instead of refurbished and for less money. While I think each of the cameras would prove satisfactory to you, I don't think there is really any doubt- go with the FH20. Also, I haven't read anywhere of anyone complaining about a Panasonic lens, whether it's licensed from Leica or not. I'd put more faith in the Amazon guarantee and Panasonic warranty than the label on the lens (For what it's worth, I often buy refurbished- computers, ipods, ipod speakers- and the only time I've had a problem was with a refurbished camera. Sure, it's a small sample size, but I wouldn't recommend refurbished in this category). Hope my experience helps you.
1306622
I have been researching the FZ35 on CNET and others. Never saw the FZ40 till I went to check prices on Amazon. Why is the FZ35 cost more if its last years model? Any ideas?
724480
I do not know how it compares to the dmc zs8. In my research I found that the zs25 was a newer version of the zs20. A few people seemed to prefer the zs20, however, I am extremely happy with my zs25. It has 20X optical zoom and is small enough to put in a pouch to carry on my belt anytime. These were my major criteria, though I preferred also to have a viewfinder. The only camera with a viewfinder that would go in a small belt pouch was a a Fuji camera, but its zoom was only 4X, so I sacrificed having the viewfinder in order to get a belt pouch size camera with the 20X zoom. My zs25 if fantastic. It comes with a brief user manual, so if you want a complete user manual you would have to print it from your computer, and it 150 pages long though I only printed about 100 pages. Lastly, I decided that the belt pouch recommended by Amazon to go with the camera seemed a bit tight on the dimensions, so I bought my pouch from B&H Photo on line (free shipping) the pouch that they recommended for that same camera. It had about 1/4 extra inch on the width dimension that works just fine, enabling the camera to slip out of the pouch easily when I pull on it. Hope that helps. The zs25 is a great camera. The 20X zoom means a lot to me for a small carry anywhere camera. I think that series by Panansonic may be the only ones available with these two features (hi zoom and belt pouch size) combined, at a great price.
1645973
Thanks Conway, I was so happy to see your post it gave me the push to order the Nikon D700 today from B&H.; This is my first full frame camera and I just wanted to make sure that I was making the right decision. I was mostly leaning toward the Nikon but had to consider the Mark 2. Thanks again for your help.
568654
Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or maybe even a bit smaller. I wish it were cheaper !!! :-). Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or... » Read More Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or maybe even a bit smaller. I wish it were cheaper !!! :-). « Show Less