<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for Panasonic's wide-angle Lumix DMC-FX30 gets reviewed</title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for Panasonic's wide-angle Lumix DMC-FX30 gets reviewed</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Panasonic's wide-angle Lumix DMC-FX30 gets reviewed]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</guid><description><![CDATA[These guys really need to spend some time on their sensors. Noise at ISO 100 and 200 is completely unacceptable these days and until they fix that these cameras just aren't serious contenders. The difference between the Pany and the Fuji shots is huge.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[ruttiger]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jun 1st 2007 8:28AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Panasonic's wide-angle Lumix DMC-FX30 gets reviewed]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</guid><description><![CDATA[You pixel-counters spend more time worrying about a film grain that's completely not noticable in prints rather than taking good pictures.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jun 1st 2007 9:24AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Panasonic's wide-angle Lumix DMC-FX30 gets reviewed]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</guid><description><![CDATA[It's not the noise itself but rather the effects. As the rveiew shows, the test shots, even at ISO100 and 200, have quite heavy image processing to reduce noise. This processing robs the pic of detail giving you a reduced quality image as a result.<br><br>It's not too bad, agreed, but the Fuji is miles ahead in overall 'pixel' quality. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[ruttiger]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jun 1st 2007 10:05AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Panasonic's wide-angle Lumix DMC-FX30 gets reviewed]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</guid><description><![CDATA[Not sure which "pixel-counters" you're referring to, but give me a camera with lower (high ISO) noise AND a lower pixel count any day!]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Rob]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jun 1st 2007 9:38AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Panasonic's wide-angle Lumix DMC-FX30 gets reviewed]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/panasonics-wide-angle-lumix-dmc-fx30-gets-reviewed/</guid><description><![CDATA[I enjoy my panasonic camera, I have the fx01, but I had the Canon SD500 before my sister lost it.  The noise on the panasonic was very noticeable compared to a canon, I saved money by getting the panasonic, which I still recommend, but if you have the extra cash, go for a Canon.  I would have bought an older Canon model over the Panasonic, but I wanted image stabilization, which I think only the SD700 had at that point, and it was much more expensive than the Panasonic.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[elflaco]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jun 1st 2007 10:51AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
