I got the Lumix FS-35 for Christmas to replace my old Sony which became faulty, I've only been testing with the IA mode or Scene Selection presets but I have to say I'm not impressed. The general quality of the shots is not what I'd expect from 16mp and a decent Leica lens, I just wondered if anyone else uses one and what they thought.
Any Panasonic Lumix FS-3X users?
- Thread starter Shewie
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
I need to take like for like shots really to give a fair comparison, but even then there's going to be differences in settings. With my compact point and shoot 90% of the shots are on full automatic, I just want to turn it on and click away if I see something worth capturing. They're not particularly great pictures but just stuff I've shot when out and about, I was hoping the Lumix would be twice as good as the Sony but I'm not so sure. I've only kept a fraction of the Lumix shots, most of them get deleted straight away if they come out carp on the LCD screen, at full res they're even worse.
Sony DMC-WS17
Panasonic DMC-FS35
The Lumix shots just look wishy washy to me, in full on numpty mode I was hoping for better quality pics.
Last edited:
I have a dif version (the GF1 and GF2). In 'numpty mode' They are better then the pics you have shown (but only 12mp). BUT take them out of numpty mode and use them like a real camera and they rock!
A lot of the pics look to me like either you have light reflecting in (sun in shot type) an/or the setting are not default for saturation etc. try taking in raw mode and look on your computer. How do they look?
Alan
A lot of the pics look to me like either you have light reflecting in (sun in shot type) an/or the setting are not default for saturation etc. try taking in raw mode and look on your computer. How do they look?
Alan
Any suggestions which to look at Alan? I'll have another read of the manual but I think this one's going back to Amazon. I thought the Sony caught the colours well and compensated well for dodgy light situations, the Lumix just seems to give really noisy images with no real focus.
Difficult to tell from what you posted, they aren't the full resolution images. I just wonder if it isn't something to do with the way you're displaying the images rather than the images themselves. Obviously if you have an image that's 4,000 pixels square it won't all fit on your screen even if it's 1920x1700, so either you have to look only at bits of it at any one time or something has to translate the image into something smaller that will fit on the screen. Different tools to do that have different degrees of success. SWMBO seems to come up with pretty good results from her 8MP Olympus E500 DSLR, I don't know what she uses but it will be on a Linux box so it might not be any use to you anyway.
TBH as far as resolution is concerned I don't see that there's any need to go beyond the 8MP of the E500 unless it's for special purposes way beyond the holiday snap. Probably better to spend any extra money on the lenses or things like image stabilization -- I think that would be the biggest easily obtained improvement on what the wife uses.
IS is supposed to be one of the better features of this Lumix Ged, if you ask me they look worse than the Sony.
The wife teaches 6th form photography and is pretty handy on Photoshop etc, she's agreeing with me about the Lumix so far. I'm not giving up on it yet so I'll see what I can try with the manual to hand, it's just on charge at the moment.
The wife teaches 6th form photography and is pretty handy on Photoshop etc, she's agreeing with me about the Lumix so far. I'm not giving up on it yet so I'll see what I can try with the manual to hand, it's just on charge at the moment.
Personally I have for 'in my pocket' an olympus. But not because it is the best image quality, but because it does wide angle the equiv of 24mm and is reasonable on quality. But when I want to do what I call 'propper' photography then its the Lumix GF1 or 2 and if I want the best then Its my pentax cameras with a prime supatak lens.
Alan
Alan
I have a small Lumix that i use due to it being tiny and fits the pocket well. I agree my photos look washed out too, thats why i ended up getting a canon g10. Yes its bigger and more expensive but way way better in every way.
I also use a canon eos 350d which has been a good friend and takes some cracking pics but just replaced it with a Nikon.
The canon will be up for sale soon.
I also use a canon eos 350d which has been a good friend and takes some cracking pics but just replaced it with a Nikon.
The canon will be up for sale soon.
Lets get a couple of things straight.
You cannot compare a compact to a DSLR in the way thats being done here.
The thing is that not all 16MP sensors are the same. This camera will have the 16MP on a sensor about half the size of half a postage stamp. A DSLR will have a much bigger sensor and the lenses will be much higher quality too.
You also need to factor in that the light on the shots taken on the Panasonic was dull and flat which the camera appears to have reproduced faithfully IMO. It managed to get the snow white for a start which many cameras will not.
Look HERE for a review. I have not read this so dont know what it says.
Sensor size matters more than pixels BTW and comparing a compact to a DSLR that cost 5 times as much not fair.
You cannot compare a compact to a DSLR in the way thats being done here.
The thing is that not all 16MP sensors are the same. This camera will have the 16MP on a sensor about half the size of half a postage stamp. A DSLR will have a much bigger sensor and the lenses will be much higher quality too.
You also need to factor in that the light on the shots taken on the Panasonic was dull and flat which the camera appears to have reproduced faithfully IMO. It managed to get the snow white for a start which many cameras will not.
Look HERE for a review. I have not read this so dont know what it says.
Sensor size matters more than pixels BTW and comparing a compact to a DSLR that cost 5 times as much not fair.
Last edited:
I was hoping you'd see this thread Alf 
I'm just not that impressed by the Lumix, I thought after 8 or so years since I got the Sony that I would be getting better quality images.
I'll setup up a couple of shots indoors tonight and try to copy the settings for each camera, I should get a better idea then.
I'm just not that impressed by the Lumix, I thought after 8 or so years since I got the Sony that I would be getting better quality images.
I'll setup up a couple of shots indoors tonight and try to copy the settings for each camera, I should get a better idea then.
Which is why I said to ignore my post!
I got the model number wrong.
The lumix (upper end) cameras are good quality (everyone has their own opinion).
But the compacts (compared to other compacts) are not regarded as well.
Then again some people like Holgas! lol
Alan
Alan
You did say ignore your comments but others have compared a kia picanto to a range rover and they are not the same thing and are designed for different purposes but achieve similiar
You did say ignore your comments but others have compared a kia picanto to a range rover and they are not the same thing and are designed for different purposes but achieve similiar