Matt Golowczynski
WDC Technical Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 123
Loc: London
|
|
We've just finished the Panasonic FZ18 video review, which can now be viewed here:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K6H_YM4Mlds
Don't forget to rate it and leave any comments, should you have any.
|
dangie
Puff Pastry Connoisseur
Reged: 04/08/2006
Posts: 378
Loc: Any Pub in Staffordshire
|
|
I have the FZ8 and if the FZ18 is as good but with the extra zoom length then Panasonic are onto another winner. I find the images are excellent from the FZ8 with noise no worse than from other similar bridge type cameras.
What I don't understand from your test however, is that you can rate the FZ18 at 90%, when in your view it falls down on image quality. Surely that is the purpose of a camera. To record and produce images. No matter how impressive the rest of the camera may be, if they are not up to scratch then how can you mark it so highly?
--------------------
My Brain's five feet eight inches from the ground
But my mind's in the gutter....
Dangies Flickr
|
Matt Golowczynski
WDC Technical Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 123
Loc: London
|
|
In the actual test that will appear in the November issue of WDC, the final score shows scores of 18 and 19 in most areas (performance, features, etc) but 17 for image quality. It wasn't image quality in itself that was bad – as the camera produced very impressive images – it was simply noise. Had it been less noisy, it would have maybe gotten 18 for image quality. Final scores are ascertained by adding up design, performance, value for money, image quality and features, which in this case happened to be 90%. It can't be ignored that the rest of the camera did extremely well and while the issue of noise was noted, it wasn't a problem that warranted a score below 17. In my honest opinion, the camera deserved its 90% score as it reflected the sum of its strengths and weaknesses.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
