Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ10 gets reviewed

Panasonic's Lumix DMC-LZ10 certainly won't win over many folks on its looks alone, but Photography Blog found that it more makes up for its rather bland exterior where it counts, and they've given the 10-megapixel camera high marks across the board in their new review. Winning the most praise is the camera's full manual controls, which proved to be enough to get Photography Blog to declare the LZ10 "one of the most versatile compacts in its class." Just as importantly, it also found the image quality to be an improvement over the previous generation models, with the 5x, 30mm wide-angle zoom lens turning in some great results and the camera's image stabilization feature actually proving to be quite useful. Less than useful, however, was the camera's ISO 800 and 1600 settings which, like most cameras in this class, proved to be more of a gimmick than anything. The site was also a bit disappointed by the camera's slightly awkward control system and slow maximum apertures, among other minor quibbles, but those apparently weren't enough to stop it from getting an impressive 4.5 out of 5 rating. The sub-$250 price tag certainly didn't hurt things either.

[frank @ Apr 7th 2008 5:42PM]

I bought a Leica C-LUX1 a year or two ago because of the relatively high marks it received on DP Review. To my dismay, my girlfriend's ancient Canon PowerShot (not sure how old or what model but it's a 5 MP) blows the doors off it in nearly all respects. I've been tempted by the Leica/Lumix line a few times before but every review I read basically leads me to believe that you'd have to be crazy to buy anything but a Canon if you're looking for a point-and-shoot. The only positive I can say about Lumix line is that they seems to be the only ones pushing wide angle lenses in the $250-$400 range. The 28mm lens on my C-LUX is nice and I'd like to check out the 25mm on the new FX35.

[Jeff P. @ Apr 7th 2008 6:52PM]

I'm waiting for the DMC-FX500. It's either coming out in May or June depending on where you read. It's got a 25-125 35mm equivalent zoom, is 10-megapixel, has full manual controls, records video in 720p resolution and has a much smaller form factor than the other camera I am considering which is the DMC-TZ5. I'll want to see the early reviews before making a move but it looks sweet. I believe it's the first Panasonic to incorporate a 3" touchscreen as well. Image quality on the Panasonic might not be quite as nice as on select Canons or Nikons but their feature set is quite nice.

[RCL1221 @ Apr 7th 2008 8:35PM]

It is however a shame that the design is very 2002.

[Patrick @ Apr 7th 2008 11:21PM]

What is a "slow maximum aperature"? Does that sentence refer to a slow system for changing aperature? Well, a larger lens aperature would allow the sensor to collect light "quickly".
Please help me; I feel I'm missing something. :)

[Jeff P. @ Apr 8th 2008 12:37AM]

They state that they were disappointed by the "slow maximum apertures. This makes complete sense. A good, high-end lens is considered "fast" if it allows in lots of light or has a large maximum aperture. This lens is "slow." In other words it doesn't allow in as much light as they think it should.

[Patrick @ Apr 8th 2008 8:31AM]

Ok, thanks! I guess I haven't heard that term much. I'm glad I sort of guessed it. yay! So "fast" in this context doesn't directly describe the object, which would be measured in size, but describes the situation in which the object is used. "Fast" tires on a car aren't fast themselves, but are used for fast driving. (I'm making up an example...I know even less about cars than I do about photography.)

Ug, how could I have not made that connection? Well, thanks again. :D

[Dave @ Apr 7th 2008 11:48PM]

You can tell this was a paid ad for engadget, that was most shit review I've ever read in my life.

[jabbawack85 @ Apr 8th 2008 3:37AM]

Let's see if anyone can explain this to me: I bought a digital reflex sometime ago, like a couple of years. At that time you could spend a lot of money on a full frame reflex, and the focal lenght would have been directly comparable to a 35mm camera focal lenght, or you could save some money on a camera with the tipical frame footprint, and to know the focal lenght (in terms of a 35mm) you had to multiply the camera's focal lenght 1,6x.
My girlfriend has just bought a leica, not this one, and the clerk told me that now the focal lenght is now expressed directly in terms of a 35mm even if it is not full frame.
Why did they change that and when?
Thanks