What is the difference between the FZ 200 and the FZ 200K, other than the $100 price difference?
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
1647033
I wondered myself. Went to Panasonic site. K only reflects that color is Black. I looked on Panasonic site at point and shoot cameras, and looked at some that come in other colors, and changed color and the ending letter designated r for red, v for purple, p for pink -- etc.
1595862
I was also on the fence between these cameras. Tried both out at the local camera shop. I will probably be doing a fair amount of video too, and the Nikon P500 had the worst image stabilization I have ever seen. The FZ100 was rock solid in comparison. I also recently found out that the FZ100 can have filters and telephoto extensions added to the lens. I'm going to wait a few weeks to see if it gets upgraded, but if not the FZ100 seems the way to go. The Nikon felt cheap in comparison.
688325
The FZ8 can also allow you to shoot in Manual Mode...IMHO only 2 big differences between both of them 1.18X Optical Zoom 2.Poor image quality than FZ8.The reason is the Image sensor is nearly the same as in FZ8 but in FZ18 it has the responsibility of capturing 18X zoom images instead of 12X. 3.For above features and some more the price difference between both is nearly $100.00. The Lumix FZ50 too is based on 12X lens core but it atleast has a DSLR like look and feel and it has the real Manual mode. The manual mode in FZ8 and FZ18 is a still controlled by the motor which pushes the lens forward or backward. In FZ50 there is a DSLR like "ring" option which you can use in Movie Mode for true zooming while shooting. If you really wanna advanced camera in the Panasonic Lumix family then FZ50 or even the out of production FZ30 is a great and worthy upgrade. Last week I bought a Lumix FZ8 after researching the net for 1 month.Panasonic has fundamentally erred in introducing a new featureless model in FZ18.
490818
I am also looking at these two cameras. My needs are a good low light performance as well as action sport shots. I had purchased the Panasonic FZ8 but have returned it because the inside low light pictures were very noisy and grainy. It took great outside pictures and was responsibly fast. I'm currently wanting to try the Sony but don't like the idea of having to buy a memory stick for it, I have a few sd cards that the Canon takes.
355603
Yes (I have one). Search for FZ200 shallow depth of field for example images
2078344
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.
1783065
Hi this canon 100-400 is f4.5-5.6 while the 70-200 is f2.8. These two lenses are totally different.
825630
&gt;&gt;I didn't realize this camera was out there when I bought my FZ28! I notice that in the copy under the camera description, significantly more bought the FZ28K than the FZ50. Presumably the price is the reason, I suppose along with the 18x optical zoom.&lt;&lt; this one came out before the fz28, but at the time i only paid about $440 &gt;&gt;Many reviewers above said the FZ50 is "almost" a dslr - but many, many dslrs are considerably less expensive than the FZ50, which I think costs more now than when it came out....and I think I saw on the digital review site that the camera has been discontinued. &lt;&lt; i didn't know about it being discontinued so soon. it compares to a dslr in many ways. but the ISO settings are pretty noisy above ISO 400, whereas in good dslr's you can get good results up to ISO 3200. this is a very good review that gives all of its specs. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/ here it is compared to the canon rebel XT where you can see the ISO 1600 on both cameras. the canon is better. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page17.asp &gt;&gt;The user photos for this camera are wonderful! I have a Canon Rebel XS, which cost quite a bit less than this camera, and an FZ28K....I'm now wondering if I should sell the FZ28 K, return the Canon, and get a used FZ50.&lt;&lt; yeah, i get better pictures than i ever have. &gt;&gt;What is it about this camera that makes it worth nearly a thousand dollars? &lt;&lt; i don't know. i don't understand. i haven't seen that happen with any other camera.
1691038
Michael, I own a Panasonic DMC-FZ30. If I had the money I would switch to this S100 for one main reason, that being low light capability. The 30 is limited to ISO 400, I see the 50 can go all the way up to 1600 so that may do the trick. Other than that I'm quite happy with the 30. I've had it three years, taken 1000's of photos of which I'm pretty happy. However the low light limits me quite often. The 30/50 have sensors much smaller than the s100. I think Fuji would have been better off with the large sensor they used but with 8 megapixels which would have improved photo quality, especially at the higher ISOs. The megapixel race is one of the biggest problems in the digital camera arena today. There again the 50 and S100 aren't that far apart in the megapixel race but look at the size of the Fjui sensor - wow! I would enjoy the 2 1/2 inch LCD over the 30/50's 2". I wouldn't miss the rotating feature on the Panasonic as I mostly use it in vertical modes and the Fuji provides that. Another thing I'd want is better video. Even though the three cameras have the same specs I'm disappointed with the Panasonic results. The video from my 30 aren't as good as my wife's Sony W50 point-and-shoot. I guess I'd have to hold them in my hand to compare the Fuji 100 vs the Panasonic 50. My conclusion for you? If I had the 50 in hand already I wouldn't be looking to upgrade. The Panasonic is bound to have more noise due to the smaller sensor. The Fuji looks like it has less noise but there are rampant complaints about purple fringing although most say it only shows up on hard contrast shots. The Panasonic is better at purple fringing but worse on noise - choose your weakness. Battery life is awesome on my 30 and it is indicated to be lower on the S100. Are these differences worth the difference in price (50=$579 S100=$655 9/19/08 on Amazon). If it was me purchasing today I'd go for the S100. What did you decide?
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
288589
I have just ordered an FZ35. I was previously holding out for the FZ40, but after reading the reviews on the FZ100, I have concluded that the FZ35 is a BETTER product than the FZ40 will be! According to many FZ35 owners who have purchased an FZ100 (which has the same lens, zoom, and CCD chip as the FZ40) the image quality is NOT as good on the FZ100 as it is on the FZ35. This is attributed to the increased Megapixels that are jammed onto a SMALLER CCD chip. In order to add the increased zoom, Panasonic had to shrink the size of the CCD chip, and at the same time they jammed in more pixels. Consequence: loss of image quality. Low light photos on the FZ100 are apparently grainier on the FZ100 than on the FZ35 as well. Add to that the fact that the FZ40 will only accept microchipped Panasonic batteries (at 3-4 times the price of aftermarket batteries) and the choice is clear! Stop waiting! Buy an FZ35. I just did myself!
399093
First off, the FZ200 is NOT a DSLR. You cannot change the lens. It is called a "bridge camera." The lens that is built into the camera is a Leica 25mm-600mm constant f2.8 aperture lens. That is about as much lens as most people ever need.I just use the builtin flash. Panasonic makes several flashes, but the cost almost as much as the camera. If I need an external flash, I use my Canon 40D DSLR and its EX58o external flash.I realize this doesn't help you, but with the f2.8 lens you "might" not really need to buy an external flash. If you do, I'd buy one that Panasonic makes for the FZ200. I have no experience with any of them. Sorry... First off, the FZ200 is NOT a DSLR. You cannot change the lens. It is called a "bridge camera." The lens that is built into the camera is a Leica 25mm-600mm constant f2.8 aperture lens. That is about as much lens as most people ever need.I just use the builtin flash. Panasonic makes several flashes, but the cost almost as much as the camera. If I need an external flash, I use my Canon 40D DSLR and its EX58o external flash.I realize this doesn't help you, but with the f2.8 lens you "might" not really need to buy an external flash. If you do, I'd... » Read More First off, the FZ200 is NOT a DSLR. You cannot change the lens. It is called a "bridge camera." The lens that is built into the camera is a Leica 25mm-600mm constant f2.8 aperture lens. That is about as much lens as most people ever need.I just use the builtin flash. Panasonic makes several flashes, but the cost almost as much as the camera. If I need an external flash, I use my Canon 40D DSLR and its EX58o external flash.I realize this doesn't help you, but with the f2.8 lens you "might" not really need to buy an external flash. If you do, I'd buy one that Panasonic makes for the FZ200. I have no experience with any of them. Sorry... « Show Less
384465
My FZ-7 was $198 at Circuit City. The model has been replaced by the FZ-8 so the FZ-7 should be found with steep discounts now.
155370
From what I have read, the only difference is the zoom ability and a tripod. This is what I read on another website so I really don't have any conclusive information.
1196604
I won't go as far as to say FZ18 is featureless but I will say that the older one hands down takes better photos. (I have new one/brother has old one). Image quality IS not as good, even with the steadiest of hands. I'd recommend going with older one until sensor is improved in new model.
391685
I noticed that the SD 960 actually has a faster lens than the SX 200, but I much prefer the beefier body styling and extra zoom on the SX 200. I just wonder how much a difference F/3.4 compared to a F/2.8 in a compact camera like this would really make? I've also been thinking about picking up the LX3, but hearing you say you would trade in makes me wonder, have you found the F/2.0 lense to be a big difference compared to other compacts?
883522
Cant really answer this as I have not seen images from FZ70. I did read reviews and to my recall the image quality was not up to snuff. However, it all depends on how you will use it. I have been getting great quality photos for the X-S1. Here is a link to my images (mainly from X-S1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/110260652@N04/ . I did look at the FZ 200 which again has the smaller zoom, but is much higher rated for image quality.