From: John Navas on
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:29:16 +0100, in
<i0hjkt$6uo$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:lvbn269qq150epheqlppj8n9mdegk4sed5(a)4ax.com...
>[]
>> Imaging Resource agrees with me
>> <http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ28/FZ28A.HTM>:
>>
>> The Lumix FZ28's zoom is quiet, smooth, and fast. It also has quite a
>> few steps to choose from along its zoom range, while a great many
>> cameras just zoom in large blocks that make framing your image
>> precisely very difficult. NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE FZ28.
>> [emphasis added]

>In its class, John, it may well be very good, but having a stepped rather
>than a continuous zoom, and having to push a lever forwards and backwards
>to frame an image, is a much slower process than the twist of a
>mechanically coupled zoom.

To you. Not to those of us who have learned how to use it effectively.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: John Navas on
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:09:55 -0700, in
<4c2c8592$0$22174$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:

>On 01/07/10 1:29 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> In its class, John, it may well be very good, but having a stepped
>> rather than a continuous zoom, and having to push a lever forwards and
>> backwards to frame an image, is a much slower process than the twist of
>> a mechanically coupled zoom.
>
>It's not impossible to have a mechanical zoom ring on a super-zoom, i.e.
>the Sony R1 had it, as did a couple of others. It's just an expense that
>manufacturers could no longer afford in their race to the bottom in
>terms of prices for P&S cameras.

It's actually a bad idea because it compromises the optical and
mechanical design of the lens.

>[SNIP pontification about a camera you've never actually used]

>Some day I'd like to see a review of a Panasonic camera that didn't have
>a statement about how the images are "good enough" despite the noise.
>I.e. the Imaging Resource review of the FZ28 states, "Though there is an
>ongoing problem with sensor noise at even the lowest ISOs, optical
>quality and overall image quality are good enough that most buyers
>ignore it and persist in blissful satisfaction with their faithful
>little image makers."

Another camera you've never actually used, so you have to resort to
scouring the Internet for something negative you can exaggerate.

>Every other review of this product line, including
>the newer FZ35, prominently notes the noise issue.

TrustedReviews: Image Quality 10/10
* At the minimum ISO setting the image quality is very good, with no
trace of noise.
* At 200 ISO there is virtually no difference.
* Noise is starting to appear at 400 ISO, but there's still plenty of
fine detail and the colour rendition is still accurate.

Digital Camera Review: ...it's clear that Panasonic has made some
serious strides in making its high-sensitivity settings more usable.
Although noise reduction can be fine-tuned, I found the FZ28's default
approach to hit that elusive balance between noise and noise reduction
about as well as could be expected. ISO 800 is clean enough this time
around to be almost "no reservations" usable, and colors hold their
vibrancy throughout the range.

Steve's Digicams: Imager noise was well controlled when using the higher
ISO capabilities of this camera. I found you can create nice large
prints using settings of ISO 800 and below. ...great image quality...

I guess these and other favorable reviews just don't exist in your
parallel universe. ;)

--
Best regards,
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
From: David J Taylor on
"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:2sap269bp95cfq8925h8ki5kofc9jvhkm1(a)4ax.com...
[]
> You have not used my model camera. You're making assumptions from other
> earlier cameras. Will you admit that?

Not making assumptions. Experience from having used that class of camera.
Push-button zoom will be slower than ring-twist zoom, for example.

> Of course. And I accept that different people will see different
> advantages based on their own capabilities and needs, do you?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John

I always have, unlike some here.

Cheers,
David

From: David J Taylor on
"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:v3bp26leb87qcv4iu4rnvruolfqcin3rdq(a)4ax.com...
[]
>>In its class, John, it may well be very good, but having a stepped
>>rather
>>than a continuous zoom, and having to push a lever forwards and
>>backwards
>>to frame an image, is a much slower process than the twist of a
>>mechanically coupled zoom.
>
> To you. Not to those of us who have learned how to use it effectively.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John

Have it your own way, John. I read what you're saying as "accept its
limitations". Anyone can walk into a camera shop and draw their own
conclusion.

Cheers,
David

From: John Navas on
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:53:19 +0100, in
<i0idlg$llp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:2sap269bp95cfq8925h8ki5kofc9jvhkm1(a)4ax.com...
>[]
>> You have not used my model camera. You're making assumptions from other
>> earlier cameras. Will you admit that?
>
>Not making assumptions. Experience from having used that class of camera.
>Push-button zoom will be slower than ring-twist zoom, for example.

You have to be making assumptions because you have NO direct experience
with my model camera, and because you're projecting your own limitations
onto me, which likewise isn't valid.

--
Best regards,
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern´┐Żs Law of Suspended Judgement]