FZ30 first impressions

I've had a new FZ30 for just a week now and have some first impressions.
I'm upgrading from an Olympus C700, so this is a rather large jump.

Over-all, I'm delighted with the feel and the usability of the FZ30.
Noise is a non-issue. I ran the C700 at its lowest ISO setting and I
do the same with the FZ30. The manual focus and zoom rings on the
lens are very nice. Manual focus accuracy is not quite as nice as the
split-prism focuser on my old OM-2n, but is much better than the C700.

The FZ30 can shoot the night sky and actually record constellations,
something the C700 was utterly incapable of. In "starry sky" mode,
the FZ30 uses dark frame subtraction to achieve results with very low
noise.

The stabilizer seems to be fairly effective, but I need to do some
more experiments. Some hand-held long-telephoto shots of Mt. Rainier
in full sun show no motion blur, but are not as sharp as I would like.
This could be trouble with the autofocus, too much haze, or just a bit
too much shake for the stabilizer.

This camera boots instantly, which is very nice. It also remembers
more things than the C700 did. Focus mode is controlled by an
external switch, for example, and is not affected by a restart of
the camera. Things like that are taking a little getting used to.

I've done a rough characterization of the minimum focusing distance
at various zoom settings. The FZ10 and 20 apparently had a pronounced
step at the 3x zoom setting, with the minimum focusing distance going
way up beyond that point. The FZ30 lens is clearly an entirely new
design. Here's what I found:

Distance MF AF Macro
6' 420mm 420mm
5' 420mm 420mm
4' 300mm 240mm
3' 200mm 200mm
2' 185mm 165mm
1'6" 135mm 135mm
1' 135mm 135mm
6" 65mm 60mm
4" 45mm 45mm

The focal length numbers are the maximum at which focus could be
achieved. In MF mode, I did the best I could to judge accurate
focus. In AF Macro mode, I used the camera's report of whether
it thought it had achieved focus. (It often appeared to have
good focus at slightly longer focal lengths, but the focus
indicator disagreed with me.) Focal lengths were estimated
from the markings on the focus ring, and are subject to some
uncertainty. The table is plain ASCII with tabs. It will
probably look funny in a variable-pitch font, in a viewer that
doesn't assume tab stops every 8 characters, or whatever.
Sorry about that.

The FZ30 is very definitely not pocketable. The old C700 would
not fit in a shirt pocket, but you could get it into the cargo
pocket of a rain jacket. My camera doesn't feel particularly
heavier than my friend's FZ10, but is easier on the hand because
of the deeper grip. When both are powered off, the FZ10 is less
bulky.

I got camera, a 1GB Ultra II card, spare battery, and a bag from
B&H Photo for $600 and would buy from them again.

Paul Allen

"Paul Allen" wrote in message
.. .
I've had a new FZ30 for just a week now and have some first impressions.
I'm upgrading from an Olympus C700, so this is a rather large jump.

Over-all, I'm delighted with the feel and the usability of the FZ30.
Noise is a non-issue. I ran the C700 at its lowest ISO setting and I
do the same with the FZ30. The manual focus and zoom rings on the
lens are very nice. Manual focus accuracy is not quite as nice as the
split-prism focuser on my old OM-2n, but is much better than the C700.

The FZ30 can shoot the night sky and actually record constellations,
something the C700 was utterly incapable of. In "starry sky" mode,
the FZ30 uses dark frame subtraction to achieve results with very low
noise.

The stabilizer seems to be fairly effective, but I need to do some
more experiments. Some hand-held long-telephoto shots of Mt. Rainier
in full sun show no motion blur, but are not as sharp as I would like.
This could be trouble with the autofocus, too much haze, or just a bit
too much shake for the stabilizer.

This camera boots instantly, which is very nice. It also remembers
more things than the C700 did. Focus mode is controlled by an
external switch, for example, and is not affected by a restart of
the camera. Things like that are taking a little getting used to.

I've done a rough characterization of the minimum focusing distance
at various zoom settings. The FZ10 and 20 apparently had a pronounced
step at the 3x zoom setting, with the minimum focusing distance going
way up beyond that point. The FZ30 lens is clearly an entirely new
design. Here's what I found:

Distance MF AF Macro
6' 420mm 420mm
5' 420mm 420mm
4' 300mm 240mm
3' 200mm 200mm
2' 185mm 165mm
1'6" 135mm 135mm
1' 135mm 135mm
6" 65mm 60mm
4" 45mm 45mm

The focal length numbers are the maximum at which focus could be
achieved. In MF mode, I did the best I could to judge accurate
focus. In AF Macro mode, I used the camera's report of whether
it thought it had achieved focus. (It often appeared to have
good focus at slightly longer focal lengths, but the focus
indicator disagreed with me.) Focal lengths were estimated
from the markings on the focus ring, and are subject to some
uncertainty. The table is plain ASCII with tabs. It will
probably look funny in a variable-pitch font, in a viewer that
doesn't assume tab stops every 8 characters, or whatever.
Sorry about that.

The FZ30 is very definitely not pocketable. The old C700 would
not fit in a shirt pocket, but you could get it into the cargo
pocket of a rain jacket. My camera doesn't feel particularly
heavier than my friend's FZ10, but is easier on the hand because
of the deeper grip. When both are powered off, the FZ10 is less
bulky.

I got camera, a 1GB Ultra II card, spare battery, and a bag from
B&H Photo for $600 and would buy from them again.

Paul Allen

Hi Allen,
A great report on this camera.
I inherited from my son FZ20 - he upgraded to Canon Rebel SLR Digital - and
I like my FZ20.
Not much not to like + the price was right G
Cheers _ Hunibal _

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:41:36 -0700, Paul Allen wrote:

snip
I've done a rough characterization of the minimum focusing distance
at various zoom settings. The FZ10 and 20 apparently had a pronounced
step at the 3x zoom setting, with the minimum focusing distance going
way up beyond that point. The FZ30 lens is clearly an entirely new
design. Here's what I found:

Distance MF AF Macro
6' 420mm 420mm
5' 420mm 420mm
4' 300mm 240mm
3' 200mm 200mm
2' 185mm 165mm
1'6" 135mm 135mm
1' 135mm 135mm
6" 65mm 60mm
4" 45mm 45mm

The focal length numbers are the maximum at which focus could be
achieved.
snip

I was interested to see these numbers, because they appear to confirm the
"dead zone" I reported for the earlier FZ10. This prevents you from filling
the frame with small subjects at distances of 1 to 5 feet. My old Oly C-720
was *much* better in this regard. See comparison details he

http://www.tangotools.com/panasonic/...tml#focalrange

Are you running into the same issue with the FZ30? Try taking a close-up of
a coin from 4 feet away.

Pete

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:10:51 -0700
Pete wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:41:36 -0700, Paul Allen wrote:

snip
I've done a rough characterization of the minimum focusing distance
at various zoom settings. The FZ10 and 20 apparently had a
pronounced step at the 3x zoom setting, with the minimum focusing
distance going way up beyond that point. The FZ30 lens is clearly
an entirely new design. Here's what I found:

Distance MF AF Macro
6' 420mm 420mm
5' 420mm 420mm
4' 300mm 240mm
3' 200mm 200mm
2' 185mm 165mm
1'6" 135mm 135mm
1' 135mm 135mm
6" 65mm 60mm
4" 45mm 45mm

The focal length numbers are the maximum at which focus could be
achieved.
snip

I was interested to see these numbers, because they appear to confirm
the "dead zone" I reported for the earlier FZ10. This prevents you
from filling the frame with small subjects at distances of 1 to 5
feet. My old Oly C-720 was *much* better in this regard. See
comparison details he

http://www.tangotools.com/panasonic/...tml#focalrange

Are you running into the same issue with the FZ30? Try taking a
close-up of a coin from 4 feet away.

Not sure what you mean by a close up from four feet away. Anyway,
the longest focal length I can use at a range of four feet is
halfway between 200 and 300 mm on the zoom ring. I called it 240mm
in the table above. The field is 8" wide at that range and
focal length. Even at max zoom, the out-of-focus field is only 6"
wide at four feet.

OK, you piqued my interest, so I measured the minimum field size
at various ranges:

Distance Size
2 3
3 3 5/8
4 4 1/4
5 4 1/4
6 4 5/8
7 4 5/8
8 3 1/2
9 3 1/2
10 4 1/16
11 4 1/4
12 4 3/8
13 4 1/2
14 4 3/4
15 5
16 5 1/4
17 5 3/8
18 5 3/4
19 6
20 6 1/8
21 6 1/2
22 6 9/16
23 6 1/2
24 6 3/8
25 6 1/4
26 6 1/8
27 6 1/2
28 6 5/8
29 7
30 7
31 7 1/4
32 7 1/2
33 7 3/4
34 7 7/8
35 7 7/8
36 7 3/4

42 8
48 8
54 6 1/2
60 6 1/4 (full zoom)

All measurements are in inches. Accuracy on the distances is about
1/4 inch. The front lens element is a bit behind the front of the
lens barrel, and I had to estimate with the tape measure. I was
aiming at a yardstick graduated in 16ths of an inch and used the
viewfinder to judge the field width.

As one would expect, the smallest field size is at the closest possible
range. You can't use the full zoom until you get 5' from the subject,
at which point the field size is a bit more than three times what it was
at a 2" range. There is a bit of a sweet spot between ranges of 8 and 9
inches where the field size is only 3.5". I used AF Macro for all of
these measurements and let the camera tell me when it had good focus.

Have we got enough data yet? :-)

Paul Allen

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:50:50 -0700, Paul Allen wrote:

I was interested to see these numbers, because they appear to confirm
the "dead zone" I reported for the earlier FZ10. This prevents you
from filling the frame with small subjects at distances of 1 to 5
feet. My old Oly C-720 was *much* better in this regard. See
comparison details he

http://www.tangotools.com/panasonic/...tml#focalrange

Are you running into the same issue with the FZ30? Try taking a
close-up of a coin from 4 feet away.

Not sure what you mean by a close up from four feet away. Anyway,
the longest focal length I can use at a range of four feet is
halfway between 200 and 300 mm on the zoom ring. I called it 240mm
in the table above. The field is 8" wide at that range and
focal length. Even at max zoom, the out-of-focus field is only 6"
wide at four feet.

OK, you piqued my interest, so I measured the minimum field size
at various ranges:

Distance Size
2 3
3 3 5/8
4 4 1/4
5 4 1/4
6 4 5/8
7 4 5/8
8 3 1/2
9 3 1/2
10 4 1/16
11 4 1/4
12 4 3/8
13 4 1/2
14 4 3/4
15 5
16 5 1/4
17 5 3/8
18 5 3/4
19 6
20 6 1/8
21 6 1/2
22 6 9/16
23 6 1/2
24 6 3/8
25 6 1/4
26 6 1/8
27 6 1/2
28 6 5/8
29 7
30 7
31 7 1/4
32 7 1/2
33 7 3/4
34 7 7/8
35 7 7/8
36 7 3/4

42 8
48 8
54 6 1/2
60 6 1/4 (full zoom)

All measurements are in inches. Accuracy on the distances is about
1/4 inch. The front lens element is a bit behind the front of the
lens barrel, and I had to estimate with the tape measure. I was
aiming at a yardstick graduated in 16ths of an inch and used the
viewfinder to judge the field width.

As one would expect, the smallest field size is at the closest possible
range. You can't use the full zoom until you get 5' from the subject,
at which point the field size is a bit more than three times what it was
at a 2" range. There is a bit of a sweet spot between ranges of 8 and 9
inches where the field size is only 3.5". I used AF Macro for all of
these measurements and let the camera tell me when it had good focus.

Have we got enough data yet? :-)

Gasp! Yes, drowning in data...

Looks like the FZ30 has the same issues as the FZ10. With my old Oly C-720,
the figures for 3' and 4' away were under 2.0". The "dead zone" in the FZ10
was my only major complaint about the camera.

Pete