The FZ-3 has been reviewed by Digital Photography Review(tm) and by the Digital Camera Resource page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/ http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz3-review/index.shtml The FZ-20 has been reviewed by the Digital Camera Resource page and Steve's Digicams: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz20-review/index.shtml http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fz20.html All of these reviews have original-size JPEG images available for your perusal. On the Digital Camera Resource Page you can compare images that were taken at the same time with the FZ-3, FZ-20, and Canon EOS-20D. My impression is that the Panasonic/Leica lens is amazingly good, and Panasonic didn't screw up the images with bad post-processing. As expected, the small imager yields more shadow noise than the EOS-20D. Chromatic aberration and purple fringing is noticably absent. Let's face facts. The FZ-20 lens goes from 36mm to 432mm equivalent 35mm focal lengths, and it maintains F2.8 throughout the range. Add image stabilization and a pretty good manual focus capability (I played with one in a store and found it amazingly easy to use) and you have a camera that gives capabilities unmatched by any digital SLR. As I see it, its main weakness is shadow and high ISO noise that is unavoidable with a small sensor. With the addition of the (not cheap) wide-angle converter, I wouldn't hesitate to use one as my primary travel camera. I can't imagine a better safari camera for an amateur (i.e., not willing to lug a 20D or F100 and 300mm F2.8 lens around) photographer. In fact, as I write this my mom is on safari in South Africa with her FZ-1 (the predecessor to the FZ-3). I'm looking forward to the pics! --Mark Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All of Panasonic's Leica lenses are made in Panasonic factories. The > lenses are designed by Leica, and Leica engineers oversee the > manufacturing plant and test a representative sampling of the lenses, > but Leica does not manufacture the lenses directly. I was told this > by a Panasonic rep, whom I have no reason to doubt. > > That being said, the lens quality is great for a p&s digital. Of > course a DSLR has a larger sensor and will produce better photos, but > an FZ-10 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, has a 35-420mm equivalent lens, > has a maximum f-stop of f2.8 across the entire zoom range, image > stabilization, etc. etc. A DSLR with these features would probably > cost at least 5 times as much money. So yeah, it would be better, but > not everyone wants to spend that much money. P&S digitals can take > very nice photos under most circumstances. I know; I play with them > every day at work. :)
