Anyone tried the Panasonic DMC-FZ150K?

[space-time]

Pentax shooter here (old dLSR *istD) and I want something more modern with more zoom and easier to carry around, with no dust on the sensor and which doesn't break the bank.

SX40 looks nice, but what about Panasonic DMC-FZ150K? RAW, pretty good reviews all over, only 24X zoom (compared to 35X for Canon).

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ15..._1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323832481&sr=8-1

[Grateful11]

Comparison.

http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1...sg-1279476

[space-time]

saw that, read reviews on dpreview and amazon, still, I wonder if someone here tried this camera

[DP]

Not yet; I am getting one shortly. I like the RAW format and the zoom being only 24x doesn't bother me.

[deckeda]

DP wrote:
... and the zoom being only 24x doesn't bother me.

Yeah, a teleconverter would be needed, for sure. Just think, you could sell your car, no longer needing to drive anywhere to get a shot!

[Billybob]

I have the FZ150. I may have buyer regrets about not getting the SX40 for it's zoom. It's 40% longer. This is a noticeable difference but not a night and day difference. I got the camera to take shots of whales and birds in Hawaii in February, so I fear that I might regret not having the longest zoom available.

Besides that it is a very nice P&S. Of the P&S cameras that I've owned recently, the 150's IQ is comparable to the LX 3 and is better than the ZS 3 12x zoom. This is high praise since both these cameras were recognized as among the best at the time they were released.

The 150 is very fast and responsive. My biggest complaints are that it tends to blow out highlights (I guess I'm use to my D5100), and the EVF sucks (however it is better than the SX40's). In addition, I haven't been very successful at improving my Raw shots. I use Lightroom, and unlike DSLR pictures, there just isn't much detail to recover in the shadows and highlights that isn't revealed in the jpgs. I've found that shooting with -2/3 EC helps a lot in recovering highlight detail.

If you can live without the extreme zoom, then the 150 will be a much more satisfying camera than the SX40 for any photographer use to shooting with a DSLR or SLR.

[yeoman]

Hey, Billybob, I'm seriously considering the FZ150 but if you're not seeing much benefit from post-processing RAW then that puts the SX40 back in the picture [excuse the pun]. Can you please elaborate on your RAW tweaking [I use DxO Optics]. Have you done a side-by-side comparison of the FZ150 and the SX40?

[Billybob]

I use Lightroom to PP. I normally tweak WB, apply sharpening if needed, recover blown highlights, and pull detail from shadows. Most other adjustments work just fine on jpg.

The FZ150 does a darn good job with WB. It blows highlights, but I've been disappointed by how little detail I can recover either from highlights or shadows. I've been shooting with negative EC. This will give me more highlights and, hopefully, I will be able to pull details from the shadows. I'm still experimenting, so I'll let you know how that works.

I have not done a side-by-side, although I did try the SX40 in BB. Clearly, the FZ150 performs better, and is more fun to use. However, I'm having buyer's regret because my main reason for buying this camera was for the zoom. I still plan to use my DSLR for a "normal" range of focal lengths. I suspect that 90% or more of my shots with this camera will be taken at 500mm or higher 35mm-equivalent zoom. Thus, given my objectives, the SX40 may have served me better.

My recommendation is that if you want a bridge camera to be your go-with-you-everywhere-and-all-the-time camera, then the FZ150 is a better choice.

However, if you value reach over everything else, then go with the SX40.

[AllGold]

Billybob wrote:
It blows highlights, but I've been disappointed by how little detail I can recover either from highlights or shadows. I've been shooting with negative EC. This will give me more highlights and, hopefully, I will be able to pull details from the shadows. I'm still experimenting, so I'll let you know how that works.

Does the camera have any contrast settings? Or perhaps a tone curve or highlight-related setting?

[yeoman]

Billybob wrote:
My recommendation is that if you want a bridge camera to be your go-with-you-everywhere-and-all-the-time camera, then the FZ150 is a better choice.

However, if you value reach over everything else, then go with the SX40.

I'm undecided. I have an LX3 which is a GREAT camera but question whether it's up to the task for a forthcoming trip to big game country. Friends who did this trip last year said they rarely used zoom because the animals were up close so maybe the LX3 will suffice, especially at 5 megapix in EZ mode which gets 5x optical zoom. The LX easily slips into my cargo pants pocket, ready to capture the unexpected shot whereas friends don't always have their ultra zoom with them. If I take both cameras there's the worry about theft when leaving the FZ in the hotel room 'cause I wouldn't want to always carry it around my neck when the LX is more suited. Then there's two set of batteries and chargers, etc. Hmm...what to do, what to do - I have a few more weeks to ponder.