Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP8 reviewed: as good as 'a loaf of plain white bread'
By Richard Lai 
posted Dec 20th 2009 4:57AM
posted Dec 20th 2009 4:57AM
posted Dec 20th 2009 4:57AM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
how 'bout them Bears...
@Eugene Action
Rotting Bears, consumed by Ravens.
Panasonic should fire whoever was in charge of this camera's development. A "permanently exposed" lens is a big no-no for anyone who doesn't like lint, fingerprints, and scratches superimposed on their relatives' faces.
Must have been the favorite nephew of the boss
@Gad Get
agreed; I carry my camera in my pocket, and that viewfinder got permanently filled with dust/lint pretty quickly. I don't think this camera would last a month with me before an ominous fog creeps into every photo.
@Gad Get - I think the person who authorized the website to review the phone should be fired, and the site shut down. A Photography website/blog.. isnt that about good cameras? Good photography? Why review something so shitty and have such a ridiculous review. They probably had to look up all kinds of lousy words just to write it, and waste their time with overtime and editing of the shitty review, thus wasting more resources.
Leave the shitty camera reviews to the General Blogs that talk about other shitty things. Shame on you Photography blog.
@PEZ - yeah oops, camera not phone. See? It sucks so bad it caught me off guard.
@PEZ
Yeah, heaven forbid a blog dedicated to reviewing cameras and photography equipment should DO A REVIEW ON A FUCKING CAMERA.
The whole POINT of a "review" is to determine wether a product is good or not. That's why they're called "reviews" and not "snap judgements".
Besides the point, the only major gripe they had was the lack of a lens cover. "Vanilla, but adequete" doesn't exactly translate to "completely shit".
In short, go troll somewhere else.
exposed camera lens, is it concave at least? Wouldn't want the delicate lens to scratch easily..
@aricCaedmonSoftware Precisely. I seriously doubt it's a concave glass there -- must have a flat glass to protect the actual lens glass.
@Richard Lai
For point-and-shoots using "4.6x" is a lot more useful for consumers in that segment, but if you are going to use focal length as a means of measurement you should say that it is a 35mm equivalent".
By actual measurement of physical focal distance it is not a 28-128mm lens. The actual focal length of this camera is 5mm-23mm, because this camera uses a 1/2.33" image sensor and has a 5.62x crop. So it only gives a 35mm equivalences of field of view as 28-128mm, but that too is an arbitrary point of references these days since not many people use film and most people only use APS-C 1.5x/1.6x sized sensors, and dSLR lenses don't measure in equivalences.
I know everyone's the photo expert here but that zoom range should've been "translated" to 4.6x optical zoom - just for the mere non-lenseheads lke myself
@chewbie Good point. We've already mentioned that so we went for the more technical figures this time, plus the 28mm reflects the wide-angle lens.
@Richard Lai
Parenthesis, learn to use them.
@Jeff You're not being clear either.
It's a shame, I really like Panasonic's Lumix range on the whole, had three of them myself over the years. Hope the next iteration turns out to be something more desirable.
Really like the Lumix range and Im in no way a camera geek but this years Pana offering has been "meh" (except for the G1 of course) imho.
If I were to buy any camera right now, would going for the Canon S90 or the G11 be such a bad idea?
Their "permanently exposed lenses" haven't stopped people from using their various cellphone cameras, have they?
Even with some type of lens cover system in place, people still manage to put their fingerprints on the lens, particularly with these non-extending lens type models. When you try to hold them with both hands for added stability, your left fingers get pretty close to the lens. And even the best lens covers will eventually let in dust and lint; the process is just slowed down.
That being said, I still prefer some type of lens cover on my cameras just to protect the optical coatings on the lens from possible scratches occurring from being placed in and out of the case I would store it in when not in use.
I don't see how these cameras will steal any customers away from potential Sony TX1 customers.
Right?? Wrong! No lens cover = instant death for this camera. The lens being kept free of lint, scratches, etc means everything & the fact that they left it off pretty much kills any prospects of a "pocket" camera. Its worthless & whoever gave the go-ahead for this should be horse-whipped.
They might as well just take it off the market.
http://tsn.pstc.panasonic.com/viewing/ALL/DMC-FP8P/SVC/DSC0908052CE_PRINTDB/DSC0908052CE.pdf