Panasonic Z50 for birding?

[AlanM]

Is anyone using a Panasonic Z50 for birding, and if so, what results? An SLR with a proper zoom lens with image stabilization is too heavy for me. I am in my 70s and carry Swarovski 8x42s along with the necessary birding book, water, etc. A tripod won't do. I don't have an automobile, travel by bus or subway, etc. I believe it's Leica that is just out with a camera similar to the Z50 but the price seems high ($800 or so and I have seen no reviews) especially since I would guess that others will come out with similar high end semi point-and-shoot cameras (if that is the correct term for them) and the technology may be refined soon in this area.

[Lello]

Hi AlanM
I have a FZ30 (the model before the FZ50) I love my FZ30, And although it's a lot lighter than most SLR's I wouldn't use mine without a tripod or even a mono-pod at anything over 200mm zoom, 1/2 of full zoom (But then I'm not very steady) Having said that, With the 400mm zoom lens on the camera you won't have the need to buy extra heavy lenses. And as far as I know the Leica is the same camera as the FZ50 Just re-badged.
I have Attached two shots to show the lens at work, Both shots were taken from same place, The village must have been at least 10 miles away.

[Christine]

Alan ,there is also a Canon camera,PowershotS3 IS.This camera has IS so you could perhaps not need to use a tripod,and I think,it has a 13x zoom.I have heard good reviews from this cam,and I have seen shots of birds which have been taken with it.Someone else may come along with a little more info for re this camera,Alan.

[Blue Wren]

I have an FZ50, which I've been using for birding. This is my first digital camera, so I'm just learning the technology. I love it, although I have not yet taken many photos in low light. In the beginning I had my doubts about moving to a digital camera, but could not afford a DSLR, but the camera quickly won me over.

The automatic focus is too slow for flight shots, but since it has manual focus, it's not a problem. It captures excellent detail - you'll need a memory card, the one that comes with it can only handle six images at full resolution. The anti-shake is brilliant; I handhold almost all my photos, and shake has not been a problem. Personally, I couldn't be happier with it. Well worth the price.

A few of words of caution Alan from another 60+ who was about to go DSLR and didn't
(1) I also belong to an outfit called Wild About Britain (use link on my signature.) I noticed a trickle of people using FZ30s, but few stuck to them and I think there is both comment and a lot of bird and nature pics posted there too. You can also do camera based search on pbase. Obviously a lot of people are younger and richer.
(2) as an FZ7 owner, the cheap and cheerful Panasonic 12x, I suspect you may find FZ50 performs better with good light than in poor, but that may not be a worry if you have to get public transport home! I also had a chance to sell my FZ7 and had a look at Canon S3 IS again as I had wondered whether to spend the extra on it when I bought. Came to the conclusion people were not putting out any better images, the controls are less user friendly, but it might just have a good enough lens to stand a 1.4 or 1.7 converter, but then so does the FZ50 and the controls on that are even more accessible than on my FZ7, ie more manual, less joystick. Agree that the Leica is almost identical.
(3) the image stabilisation is a great selling point on panas, but I don't think it is worth bothering with unless pushing luck at 1/20sec or longer, better to jam one edge against something and the snib on the back is useful for that - and what may not at first be obvious is that every in-camera tweak you use makes it more difficult to do corrections with PS later; the panas are also designed for folks that by-pass the computer and go straight from camera to printer "daft I call it"

[Christine]

Reading the comment from Chris(Daedal) re cam straight to printer,I totally agree.I would not dare print straight from card.One would have to very confident that the prints were perfect enough to warrant the cost of the ink and paper!!!.

[Blue Wren]

I agree completely - images that look really good on the little camera screen often turn out to be rather less so on the computer monitor. It seems that these cameras were crafted with two markets in mind: the instamatic crowd, who want acceptable holiday shots at the click of a button, and have plenty of money with which to impress the neighbours, and the people who seriously hope to take good photos, but can't afford an SLR. I had forgotten the camera had the direct printing function, but I definitely wouldn't try it. Like Christine, I have better things to do with my money than waste it on paper for the bin.

It should be remembered that the FZ50, and probably other, similar cameras, are quite capable of being set in the camera store to operate for all time completely automatically, to produce acceptable images in most conditions. Acceptable being extremely variable among different camera owners. You can also zoom out to 21x, but once you get there, you have just two megapixels. Not all the functions on this camera will be useful. Whereas if you go to a DSLR, most likely all functions will have their use.

For me, the real reason I like this camera is the sheer convenience - no need to change lenses, it's small and light, and it's capable of taking good photos. It has its drawbacks though, and one of these may prove to be low light. But as I live in Australia, I'm hoping that won't prove to be a problem - at least, not often.

[Christine]

Comparing prices of modern compacts and bridge cams versus SLR's,and as Rose has mentioned it is easier just to have one cam,and no lens changes.I have seen the 300D for sale at around £100-200.It was around £950,when new 3-4yrs ago!!!.This cam,or the Nikon equivalent ,can be used with say a Tamron 28-300 lens,which is virtually useful for all types of shots,landscapes,not too wide,but it is okay,if a bird is not too far away and a decent size,Gull etc,again the 300mm focal length is okay.Excellent for close ups of children ,dogs etc,and family groups,also the lens is set up to take macro shots.So for the price of a new compact or bridge cam,one can have an SLR with the higher pixels,which are acceptable,and a low cost ,but very good lens,which is also very lightweight.Just an idea.

[AlanM]

I would get an SLR if the lens had image stabilization. However a D300 with the Tamron lens (non-IS) weighs 10 oz more than the Z50. With IS, any zoom lens and relatively light SLR brings the weight up far too much. And I need IS. That's why I thought of compromising with the Z50.

I think the comparison against an FZ50 should be made with 350D or 400D, 350 being the lightest in weight, the 400 smallest in physical size, which was attracting me for similar reasons to Alan. The comparison then is how a cheapish all-in-one lens for canon would compare with the Leica lens on the Pana.

if you have not already looked at http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews for canon lens reviews, well worth it Alan. Likewise if you haven't already have a look at full review of FZ30 and preview/changes FZ50 at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/MFR1...asonic_reviews
these are real in-depth reviews and example images are full size, not reduced; unfortunately they don't have a bird pic