Panasonic TZ3, TZ4 or TZ5

wrote in message
...
On Aug 18, 2:57 pm, "Ken" Reply to NG only wrote:
I have just given away my Panasonic FZ18 to my son as I was not taking it
out with me. So am looking at the TZ range, which will go in my pocket,
but
am confused as all three are on sale and the TZ3 seems very good but
should
I pay more and go for the TZ5. Why is it significantly more expensive?
Then
there is the TZ4????????????

Ken

Ken,

I cannot directly answer your question regarding the TZ3 vs. TZ5.
What I can tell you is that I have been very pleased with my TZ5.

Yes, I have several Nikon SLR's & DSLR's with a nice assortment of
lenses. But we were going on our first "real" vacation in two years,
and this I time I did not want to take my fully loaded Pelican case of
camera gear and then have to fight the airlines over an extra charge
for having too much luggage.

My criteria was a 1.) basic "Point and Shoot" camera; 2.) with more
than a 3x or 4x optical zoom; 3.) with at least 6MP; 4.) that would
fit in my shirt or blue jean pocket; and 5.) less than $400.

Basically, I want to travel light with something "more better" than my
wife's P&S with a 3x optical zoom

I started my research with the usual name-brand suspects, Canon, Nikon
and Sony - but nothing fit the bill. So, I extended my search to
include others such as Casio, Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, and others.

What I finally found was the Panasonic TZ5 with 10MP and 10x optical
zoom (67x digital zoom) shaped like a small-flat brick on sale at
Circuit City for $320.

I bought a camera case I could attached to my belt, a camera case to
carry all the extra "stuff" (instruction manual, cables, cords,
charger, extra batteries), 2 extra mail-order "not-Panasonic-brand"
batteries for $15 each. and two 4GB HCSD memory cards.

On our 10-day vacation trip to Disney World and the FL beaches, I took
over 800 pictures. One evening while we were relaxing, I plugged the
TZ5 into the TV, and our girls (7 and 5 years old) enjoyed the slide
show.

I am always discovering little extra's that are great for a P&S
camera. Using the "fireworks" setting, I got some great pictures of
the 10:00pm firework show above Cinderella's castle. Using the
"airplane window" setting, I got some neat pictures of some FL
manatees threw the aquarium window. And, yes I did get try out the
67x digital zoom and got some great pictures of a bald eagle!

On a side note, the TZ5 shows a calendar, and the number of pictures
taken that day. I have found this very helpful in quickly finding a
specific picture that I have taken.

I catch myself taking with me even when I don't plan on taking any
pictures - just in case. This morning, my wife doesn't know where her
Sony camera is. But "our" Panasonic TZ5 was safely tucked away in her
purse. Hmmm. What better recommendation do you need?

The screen size is a nice, comfortable and easy to read. I really
don't miss the viewfinder. Having the extra MP's just keeps it from
getting obsolete faster.

Many of the reviews I evalutated rated other cameras higher - but they
were using a different criteria than the ones I stated above. So, be
honest with yourself as to YOUR criteria, and then decide
accordingly. For example, if price is more important to you, then go
with the TZ3. If you are like me and designed for comfort instead of
speed, spend the extra bucks for the larger LCD.

Since, I have a complete set of "real" SLR/DSLR camera stuff - this is
my "grab-n-go", almost disposable rig. But, I have been very satisfied
with it. I think it is a nice balance of features for its price
point.

I understand that they now have a wireless version of the TZ5, but it
wasn't available in mid-May 2008 and it was outside my self-imposed
budget. It looks really cool, though!

Circuit City sells the black one. Best Buy sells the silver one.
Take your pick.

Thank you very very much for taking the time and trouble to give such an
enthusiastic and comprehensive report on the TZ5. Like you I have been
finding I have not been taking my FZ18 with me and then using my mobile
phone (don't laugh) to catch one or two photo chances.

Some of the ultra compacts just feel too small where this one will go in my
pocket and feels extremely solid and big enough without needing a stylus to
use the buttons!

Again many thanks and I find myself rapidly inching forward towards buying
one.

Ken

"measekite" wrote in message ...


Jack Torrence wrote:
"measekite" wrote in message ...

Ken wrote:

I have just given away my Panasonic FZ18 to my son as I was not taking it
out with me. So am looking at the TZ range, which will go in my pocket, but
am confused as all three are on sale and the TZ3 seems very good but should
I pay more and go for the TZ5. Why is it significantly more expensive? Then
there is the TZ4????????????

Ken


In that size I would take a look at the various Canons, Reviews say the
color quality and basic image quality is better. Panasonic either has
more noise or does more processing and that spoils the end result.

If you do not need an optical viewfinder take a look at the SD990. It
has been claimed to have the best 3" LCD that is viewable in bright
daylight. I have not seen this but it was claimed in the reviews.


Well done for completely ignoring the OP's question and suggesting a camera that doesn't even come anywhere close to having the features of the Pana TZ range.


Features are nice but they take a back seat to the ultimate reason for
purchasing a camera. And that is picture quality. That is really where
it is at. If you want the best picture quality you may have to give up
some features unless without those features you would not get any photo
at all.

You prat. So to take wildlife pictures you'd chose a fixed focal length camera over a 400mm zoom lens, if it produced better 'quality' pictures?

PS. Don't forget to recommend the use of genuine canon ink to print those pics from the SD900.

Blinky the Shark wrote:
[]
How does the special mode for overhead shots work?

I've not used it much myself, but I think it makes the LCD view best from
a low angle, rather than at right-angles to the screen. It may increase
the brightness as well.

Cheers,
David

wrote:
[]
On our 10-day vacation trip to Disney World and the FL beaches, I took
over 800 pictures. One evening while we were relaxing, I plugged the
TZ5 into the TV, and our girls (7 and 5 years old) enjoyed the slide
show.

You could try a few short movies as well - 5 -15 seconds - they can add a
lot to the story, as can the audio snippets.

Cheers,
David

"Jack Torrence" room217[at]overlook.freeserve.co.uk wrote in message
...
"measekite" wrote in message
...


Jack Torrence wrote:
"measekite" wrote in message
...

Ken wrote:

I have just given away my Panasonic FZ18 to my son as I was not taking
it
out with me. So am looking at the TZ range, which will go in my
pocket, but
am confused as all three are on sale and the TZ3 seems very good but
should
I pay more and go for the TZ5. Why is it significantly more expensive?
Then
there is the TZ4????????????

Ken


In that size I would take a look at the various Canons, Reviews say the
color quality and basic image quality is better. Panasonic either has
more noise or does more processing and that spoils the end result.

If you do not need an optical viewfinder take a look at the SD990. It
has been claimed to have the best 3" LCD that is viewable in bright
daylight. I have not seen this but it was claimed in the reviews.


Well done for completely ignoring the OP's question and suggesting a
camera that doesn't even come anywhere close to having the features of
the Pana TZ range.


Features are nice but they take a back seat to the ultimate reason for
purchasing a camera. And that is picture quality. That is really where
it is at. If you want the best picture quality you may have to give up
some features unless without those features you would not get any photo
at all.

You prat. So to take wildlife pictures you'd chose a fixed focal length
camera over a 400mm zoom lens, if it produced better 'quality' pictures?

PS. Don't forget to recommend the use of genuine canon ink to print those
pics from the SD900.



If I may iterject in this argument

Just to redress the balance a bit, I've got various makes of "prosumer" P&S
digital cameras, including Panasonic and Canon, and while my Panasonic FZ5
has a superb Leica zoom lens, IS and many other great features, it without
doubt produces by far the worst images of any of my cameras, when viewed at
100% on the screen, even the ISO 100 pictures are poor compared to my other
cameras. So yes Panasonic cameras are technically brilliant with great
features, but when it comes down to it, their pictures aren't on a par with
the best of the bunch. This isn't to say that I don't like my FZ5, it still
gets used a lot because of the excellent zoom range, but it's only any good
in brightly lit situations, and the pictures certainly aren't good enough to
stand up to much post processing.

"Fred" wrote in message
...
"Jack Torrence" room217[at]overlook.freeserve.co.uk wrote in message
...
"measekite" wrote in message
...


Jack Torrence wrote:
"measekite" wrote in message
...

Ken wrote:

I have just given away my Panasonic FZ18 to my son as I was not taking
it
out with me. So am looking at the TZ range, which will go in my
pocket, but
am confused as all three are on sale and the TZ3 seems very good but
should
I pay more and go for the TZ5. Why is it significantly more expensive?
Then
there is the TZ4????????????

Ken


In that size I would take a look at the various Canons, Reviews say
the
color quality and basic image quality is better. Panasonic either has
more noise or does more processing and that spoils the end result.

If you do not need an optical viewfinder take a look at the SD990. It
has been claimed to have the best 3" LCD that is viewable in bright
daylight. I have not seen this but it was claimed in the reviews.


Well done for completely ignoring the OP's question and suggesting a
camera that doesn't even come anywhere close to having the features of
the Pana TZ range.


Features are nice but they take a back seat to the ultimate reason for
purchasing a camera. And that is picture quality. That is really where
it is at. If you want the best picture quality you may have to give up
some features unless without those features you would not get any photo
at all.

You prat. So to take wildlife pictures you'd chose a fixed focal length
camera over a 400mm zoom lens, if it produced better 'quality' pictures?

PS. Don't forget to recommend the use of genuine canon ink to print those
pics from the SD900.



If I may iterject in this argument

Just to redress the balance a bit, I've got various makes of "prosumer"
P&S digital cameras, including Panasonic and Canon, and while my Panasonic
FZ5 has a superb Leica zoom lens, IS and many other great features, it
without doubt produces by far the worst images of any of my cameras, when
viewed at 100% on the screen, even the ISO 100 pictures are poor compared
to my other cameras. So yes Panasonic cameras are technically brilliant
with great features, but when it comes down to it, their pictures aren't
on a par with the best of the bunch. This isn't to say that I don't like
my FZ5, it still gets used a lot because of the excellent zoom range, but
it's only any good in brightly lit situations, and the pictures certainly
aren't good enough to stand up to much post processing.

So which camera would you suggest for me to consider as an alternative?

Ken

Fred wrote:
[]
If I may iterject in this argument

Just to redress the balance a bit, I've got various makes of
"prosumer" P&S digital cameras, including Panasonic and Canon, and
while my Panasonic FZ5 has a superb Leica zoom lens, IS and many
other great features, it without doubt produces by far the worst
images of any of my cameras, when viewed at 100% on the screen, even
the ISO 100 pictures are poor compared to my other cameras. So yes
Panasonic cameras are technically brilliant with great features, but
when it comes down to it, their pictures aren't on a par with the
best of the bunch. This isn't to say that I don't like my FZ5, it
still gets used a lot because of the excellent zoom range, but it's
only any good in brightly lit situations, and the pictures certainly
aren't good enough to stand up to much post processing.

Fred,

Any camera will have its imperfections, and being aware of these will help
you to get the best out of your purchase. For example, with the TZ3, I
tend to operate mine at ISO 100, to reduce any noise problems. Viewing at
100% on my display would correspond to an image width of over 30 inches
(IIRC), which is not, perhaps, representative of normal viewing
conditions. I have seen images blown up to A4-sized prints from the FZ5
and they are more than adequate quality, for me at least.

Cheers,
David

"Ken" Reply to NG only wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
...
"Jack Torrence" room217[at]overlook.freeserve.co.uk wrote in message
...
"measekite" wrote in message
...


Jack Torrence wrote:
"measekite" wrote in message
...

Ken wrote:

I have just given away my Panasonic FZ18 to my son as I was not
taking it
out with me. So am looking at the TZ range, which will go in my
pocket, but
am confused as all three are on sale and the TZ3 seems very good but
should
I pay more and go for the TZ5. Why is it significantly more
expensive? Then
there is the TZ4????????????

Ken


In that size I would take a look at the various Canons, Reviews say
the
color quality and basic image quality is better. Panasonic either has
more noise or does more processing and that spoils the end result.

If you do not need an optical viewfinder take a look at the SD990. It
has been claimed to have the best 3" LCD that is viewable in bright
daylight. I have not seen this but it was claimed in the reviews.


Well done for completely ignoring the OP's question and suggesting a
camera that doesn't even come anywhere close to having the features of
the Pana TZ range.


Features are nice but they take a back seat to the ultimate reason for
purchasing a camera. And that is picture quality. That is really where
it is at. If you want the best picture quality you may have to give up
some features unless without those features you would not get any photo
at all.

You prat. So to take wildlife pictures you'd chose a fixed focal length
camera over a 400mm zoom lens, if it produced better 'quality' pictures?

PS. Don't forget to recommend the use of genuine canon ink to print those
pics from the SD900.



If I may interject in this argument

Just to redress the balance a bit, I've got various makes of "prosumer"
P&S digital cameras, including Panasonic and Canon, and while my
Panasonic FZ5 has a superb Leica zoom lens, IS and many other great
features, it without doubt produces by far the worst images of any of my
cameras, when viewed at 100% on the screen, even the ISO 100 pictures are
poor compared to my other cameras. So yes Panasonic cameras are
technically brilliant with great features, but when it comes down to it,
their pictures aren't on a par with the best of the bunch. This isn't to
say that I don't like my FZ5, it still gets used a lot because of the
excellent zoom range, but it's only any good in brightly lit situations,
and the pictures certainly aren't good enough to stand up to much post
processing.

So which camera would you suggest for me to consider as an alternative?

Ken

That's a very difficult question to answer. I was toying with the idea of
buying a TZ5 my self for several months, but at the end of the day I
couldn't talk myself into accepting the heavily processed Panasonic look
after having used mainly Canons for about 6 years. Of course I may be
totally wrong, and the 10MP TZ5 may produce much less noisy and
over-processed images, than my 5MP FZ5, but somehow I doubt it.

Much as I would have loved the 10x zoom and pocketability of the TZ5, I
eventually plumped for an unused Canon Powershot S80 off eBay for when my
current S60 gives up the ghost.

"Fred" wrote in message ...
"Jack Torrence" room217[at]overlook.freeserve.co.uk wrote in message
...
"measekite" wrote in message
...


Jack Torrence wrote:
"measekite" wrote in message
...

Ken wrote:

I have just given away my Panasonic FZ18 to my son as I was not taking
it
out with me. So am looking at the TZ range, which will go in my
pocket, but
am confused as all three are on sale and the TZ3 seems very good but
should
I pay more and go for the TZ5. Why is it significantly more expensive?
Then
there is the TZ4????????????

Ken


In that size I would take a look at the various Canons, Reviews say the
color quality and basic image quality is better. Panasonic either has
more noise or does more processing and that spoils the end result.

If you do not need an optical viewfinder take a look at the SD990. It
has been claimed to have the best 3" LCD that is viewable in bright
daylight. I have not seen this but it was claimed in the reviews.


Well done for completely ignoring the OP's question and suggesting a
camera that doesn't even come anywhere close to having the features of
the Pana TZ range.


Features are nice but they take a back seat to the ultimate reason for
purchasing a camera. And that is picture quality. That is really where
it is at. If you want the best picture quality you may have to give up
some features unless without those features you would not get any photo
at all.

You prat. So to take wildlife pictures you'd chose a fixed focal length
camera over a 400mm zoom lens, if it produced better 'quality' pictures?

PS. Don't forget to recommend the use of genuine canon ink to print those
pics from the SD900.



If I may iterject in this argument

Just to redress the balance a bit, I've got various makes of "prosumer" P&S
digital cameras, including Panasonic and Canon, and while my Panasonic FZ5
has a superb Leica zoom lens, IS and many other great features, it without
doubt produces by far the worst images of any of my cameras, when viewed at
100% on the screen, even the ISO 100 pictures are poor compared to my other
cameras. So yes Panasonic cameras are technically brilliant with great
features, but when it comes down to it, their pictures aren't on a par with
the best of the bunch. This isn't to say that I don't like my FZ5, it still
gets used a lot because of the excellent zoom range, but it's only any good
in brightly lit situations, and the pictures certainly aren't good enough to
stand up to much post processing.

Fred, the average buyer of a TZ3,4,5 are not likely to print anything bigger than A4 so it's not especially relevant what it looks like on the screen at 100%. This is afterall a point and shoot camera. I believe the TZ4 & 5 are a considerable improvement over your FZ5 wrt noise, but will still be outdone by a lot of other makes (especially canon) wrt image quality. However, I suspect people who consider the TZ range are doing so because of the lens and no other maker comes close on a pocketable point and shoot, so if thats the criteria then a slightly lower image quality is a compromise that most are probably willing to accept.

"Ken" Reply to NG only wrote in message ...

"Fred" wrote in message
...
"Jack Torrence" room217[at]overlook.freeserve.co.uk wrote in message
...
"measekite" wrote in message
...


Jack Torrence wrote:
"measekite" wrote in message
...

Ken wrote:

I have just given away my Panasonic FZ18 to my son as I was not taking
it
out with me. So am looking at the TZ range, which will go in my
pocket, but
am confused as all three are on sale and the TZ3 seems very good but
should
I pay more and go for the TZ5. Why is it significantly more expensive?
Then
there is the TZ4????????????

Ken


In that size I would take a look at the various Canons, Reviews say
the
color quality and basic image quality is better. Panasonic either has
more noise or does more processing and that spoils the end result.

If you do not need an optical viewfinder take a look at the SD990. It
has been claimed to have the best 3" LCD that is viewable in bright
daylight. I have not seen this but it was claimed in the reviews.


Well done for completely ignoring the OP's question and suggesting a
camera that doesn't even come anywhere close to having the features of
the Pana TZ range.


Features are nice but they take a back seat to the ultimate reason for
purchasing a camera. And that is picture quality. That is really where
it is at. If you want the best picture quality you may have to give up
some features unless without those features you would not get any photo
at all.

You prat. So to take wildlife pictures you'd chose a fixed focal length
camera over a 400mm zoom lens, if it produced better 'quality' pictures?

PS. Don't forget to recommend the use of genuine canon ink to print those
pics from the SD900.



If I may iterject in this argument

Just to redress the balance a bit, I've got various makes of "prosumer"
P&S digital cameras, including Panasonic and Canon, and while my Panasonic
FZ5 has a superb Leica zoom lens, IS and many other great features, it
without doubt produces by far the worst images of any of my cameras, when
viewed at 100% on the screen, even the ISO 100 pictures are poor compared
to my other cameras. So yes Panasonic cameras are technically brilliant
with great features, but when it comes down to it, their pictures aren't
on a par with the best of the bunch. This isn't to say that I don't like
my FZ5, it still gets used a lot because of the excellent zoom range, but
it's only any good in brightly lit situations, and the pictures certainly
aren't good enough to stand up to much post processing.

So which camera would you suggest for me to consider as an alternative?

Ken, if you were considering the TZ range because of the lens then you don't really have any alternatives unless you look at bigger bulkier cameras.