# Yikes...the monster from Panasonic FZ70



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Panasonic takes the long view with the Lumix FZ70 | TechHive

That's a lot of kit for $400

Considering that's less than a lesser reach lens on a MFT and weighs about the same it's an interesting spin on a two camera system.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Panasonic FZ70
That's quite a camera. The industry continues to amaze.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah - see how it compares in output to the 100-300 Lumix. That certainly is enough range for birding.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

So long, megapixel race; welcome, zoom race. 60x... crazy. Birding? How about mosquitos at 100 paces?

Image quality isn't likely to come very close to a recent m43 body with the 100-300 or any other lens. The FZ70 has tons more reach, but there's only so much you can do with a tiny sensor. These small sensors (1/2.33" format) seem to be improving somewhat after a few years of regressing, but I'm sure this is still not going to be a full replacement for anything with a sensor m43 size or bigger, especially when the light is anything less than perfect.

There's no denying the appeal of something so versatile, but beware the tradeoffs.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

In the old days, when image sensor size was fixed (_i.e._, film) the trade offs were clearer. The only factors for fixed lenses were the focal length and the maximum focal ratio (f-stop) and, for zoom lenses, the focal length range. The larger the focal length and maximum f-stop, or the greater the zoom range, the heavier the lens. In the digital era, additional variables are sensor size, pixel density, de-aliasing masks, and other technological advances, making comparisons more challenging. 

The rule of thumb for image quality is still ‘bigger is better,’ and for portability, the opposite. Here’s where all the trade offs are made. This has made camera selection, all by itself, a very interesting endeavour.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Good post, Kleles. 

Fortunately, there are sites doing some pretty comprehensive testing, both lab and real-world, to help us sort the wheat from the chaff without worrying excessively about all the nuances. Not to mention posts from actual owners.

It's also good that smaller sensors seem to be improving faster than bigger ones. Gives me hope that as with m43 vs. APS-C, we'll eventually get to a point where even the 1/2.33" format is good enough, in enough situations, that most people just won't have any real reason to care about the quality gap.

Even though I'm a fan of Panasonic's cameras in general, I'm still skeptical of this one's capabilities. Really curious to see how the photos will look not just at the very long end but everywhere in between, because many manufacturers have struggled (Panasonic less than some others) to get consistently high optical quality across a big zoom range. And 60x must present a whole new bundle of issues.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Been a couple a years and I forget which model, but I tested a Panasonic against the Kodak camera which I eventually bought. The Panny showed some purple fringing in the corners at various focal lengths. This issue was not present in the Kodak. For me the big difference was in ease of use; The Panny seemed to send me burrowing into the menus often enough to discourage the purchase. The Kodak gave me similar control laid out in a much more logical manner.

For me my 10:1 zoom is adequate and I am not sure even if the glass is up to snuff I would be willing to accept the additional bulk and weight to get that bigger zoom range. 

That said a 20mm equivalent wide angle would be nicer than the occasional stitch job I do when my wide angle is not wide enough. Then again I doubt it would capture the detail I get with the stitching.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Must have been a while ago. Kodak is now purely a logo slapped on the kind of cut-rate gear you get at the drugstore (and will actually soon appear on a Micro Four Thirds camera -- a rebadged last-generation Olympus), and Panasonic long ago mastered the art of controlling purple fringing/chromatic aberration and even some geometric aberrations with both optics and firmware. 

I find UI is a very personal thing, but do agree that menu-diving is a pain. It may not be obvious on a short-term test, but Panasonic has a "quick menu" (Q Menu) system that puts most settings a click/tap or two away. This too is much more advanced and refined than it was when it started appearing in rudimentary form about 7 years ago, give or take a year.

In a nutshell, like most other manufacturers (or at least the ones that have thrived), Panasonic has come a long, long way in the last few years. Their sensors were clear laggards up until a couple of years ago too, but that's not the case anymore either (which is not to say they're now the best, just not clearly lagging far behind the leaders, i.e. Sony, Canon and Fujifilm).


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Was well before the bankruptcy bit. Nice 10:1 Schneider zoom. Almost no shutter lag. One of the best anti-shake set-ups I have encountered. Even shooting at the long end of the zoom about 350mm equivalent, I just don't see any shaky shots. Excellent battery life. During the winter I am getting about 4 months on a charge with a pair of Ray-o-Vac rechargeable AAs. The batteries are 3 years old now. Unlike Duracell NiMH they do hold a charge very well.

FWIW I worked in the photo industry and it took me a very long time to accept that for my needs this Kodak was the best bang for the buck. Quite honestly it is probably one of the few cameras made by Kodak in the past 60 years that was worth purchasing.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Too bad it wasn't f2.8 all the way out! Just kidding that would be a beast then. I tried out the superzoom Canon and was lukewarm at full zoom. You either needed a lot of light + fast shutter speed or a lot of stabilization. Very hard to hand hold at that kind of focal length. But oh so tempting at that price point and I would suspect that price of $399 will be closer to $359 by Boxing Day maybe even $299.

Also of note, this is a Lumix lens and not a Leica lens.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Niteshooter said:


> Too bad it wasn't f2.8 all the way out! Just kidding that would be a beast then. I tried out the superzoom Canon and was lukewarm at full zoom. You either needed a lot of light + fast shutter speed or a lot of stabilization. Very hard to hand hold at that kind of focal length. But oh so tempting at that price point and I would suspect that price of $399 will be closer to $359 by Boxing Day maybe even $299.
> 
> Also of note, this is a Lumix lens and not a Leica lens.


My memory may be off but I believe Lumix is a Leica design but manufactured under license. Even if that is so, I strongly suspect the compromises needed to create that extreme zoom ratio more than offset the Leica association.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The purely Lumix-branded lenses, like the one on this camera, supposedly have no Leica design input and/or don't meet criteria for Leica badging. The Panasonic lenses that do have the Leica brand have some unknown level of Leica input. I suspect it's minimal on the all-in-one cameras, mainly a question of meeting certain basic criteria and paying a licensing fee, and more serious with the interchangeable lenses. In all cases, Panasonic handles the manufacturing, 

In any case, these days Lumix lenses tend to be just as good as the Panasonics with the Leica brand (but not the "real" Leicas for M mount, etc.), but usually much less expensive. It's surely one of the things keeping the fz70 so affordable.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Lumix branded lenses have no Leica 'dna', glass in the Leica branded lenses is per their spec. But it would not surprise me if Panasonic learned so tricks from Leica and applied them to their lens designs and perhaps vice versa.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I think it's inevitable that Panasonic will have learned some tricks. And it's likely that the "Leica DNA" in the lenses, especially on the all-in-one cameras, has little or no direct input from actual Leica engineers. I say that because they've put the Leica name on numerous tiny zoom lenses for pocket cameras over the years, and I have a hard time seeing Leica getting deeply involved with those, except in the few cases when the whole camera has a Leica-badged version (the LX series being a prime example). On the other hand, it does seem plausible to me that the Leica name is more meaningful when it comes to the micro four thirds 45mm/2.8 macro and 25/1.4. But if memory serves, at least one of those was shown in prototype with the Lumix name, suggesting that the decision to get the Leica seal of approval is not necessarily made at the very start of the project.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

I think it's a bit more complicated then that Matt granted Schnieder and Zeiss have their names stamped on lens mounted on other manufacturers cameras.

Leica is a weird maybe not exactly the term but an almost religeous experience to some users, me not so much but I got my first taste when I worked for Classic Camera and the Queen Street both Leica dealers. I too questioned the mystique behind the brand but after shooting extensively with their lenses I can honestly say there is a difference. In the Panasonic line I noticed quite a difference between their Lumix vs Leica branded lenses and I keep telling myself that I am not imaging this because it is easy to assume they are better just because of the name stamped on it. 

Here is a good explanation of the Leica design philosophy. 

http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1750.pdf


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Sure, some of the Leica-badged lenses have been noticeably better, but then again some of the Lumix ones are very highly regarded, like the original 14-45 m43 kit lens, which the more zealous believe to be as good as any Leica-badged Panasonic lens (or even lacking the Leica seal of approval purely to keep the price down). Or the current f2.8 zooms for m43, considered easily the equals of the two Leica-badged m43 lenses.

And then you have the Leica name on the lens of a $250 pocket camera with a 1/2.33" sensor, whereas the next model down the line, for $50 less, only has a Lumix lens. In those cases, most people would be hard pressed to tell them apart, beyond the $50. I remain skeptical that Leica does much more than review those designs to check for compliance with a defined set of design and technical criteria.

Leica is on record as withholding its name from m43 lenses that correct distortion with software rather than optics, yet most if not all of the all-in-one lenses it approves do just that, including the flagship LX line. To me that suggests the Leica name on the all-in-one lenses is mostly about marketing.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

This is interesting...
Behind the Scenes | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

It is interesting. It's also from around 2004 or 2005. So I'd take it as providing some insight into the early days of the collaboration (reading past the marketing puffery).

But today you have things like this $125 P&S:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-SZ3 Digital Camera (White)DMC-SZ3W B&H Photo

or this $220 rugged P&S:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Digital Camera (Orange)DMC-TS4D B&H

...in which I have serious doubts that "Leica" on the lens means a whole lot more than "good marketing" and "met a basic checklist". I mean, there are genuine Leica *lens hoods* that cost more than those entire cameras, how much real Leica DNA can they have? 

Then consider the TS25, sister model to the TS4, which is lower-spec across the board and has Lumix instead of Leica on the lens: it costs $43 less. $43 might buy you a genuine Leica lens cap or two.

On the other hand, there's the new Leica 42.5mm/f1.2 (announced by Panasonic this morning, for Micro Four Thirds mount), which I fully expect to cost over $1200 (if not $1500), to be excellent, to have passed stringent requirements to be allowed to bear the Leica name, probably use a proprietary Leica coating formula, and might even involve significant hands-on design work and/or consulting by Leica in Germany. 

But such is the nature of this partnership, that most of that will remain unknown to us. It just seems to make sense to speculate that Leica means one thing on a dinky little compact P&S, and quite another on a high-spec, arguably professional-quality lens.


----------

