Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ48 Review

4.0
August 3, 2011 | Mark Goldstein |

Your Comments

26 Comments | Newest Oldest First | Post a Comment

#1 Dave33

You’ve got to be kidding, these are truly awful images. I was hoping the reduced pixel count of this model would put the FZ range back on track. How wrong I was. Even at 100iso the images are often washed out, noisy and unsharp.
I’ve often read fanboy type review comments in the past such as “my phone takes better pictures” but that description could very aptly apply here I feel.
There’s got to be better ways of spending £400, even if it’s bunging the lot on a horse!
Horrible, truly horrible

12:03 pm - Wednesday, August 3, 2011

#2 Robert Newman

Ive got to agree it seems a little to expensive for the quality, any of the cheap DSLR’s will be better. They are a little soft even for me and I tend to soften all my images.

3:07 pm - Wednesday, August 3, 2011

#3 Dave33

I would imagine it’ll sell for less than the suggested £400 retail, but seriously, you would expect better images from a sub £100 camera. It’s all very well welding on a long zoom, but if that makes the IQ poor in the process, why bother? A couple of generations ago in the FZ series the image was petty good so how Panasonic can muck it up so badly is a bit of mystery to me. Maybe down to simple economics of a decent sensor, or perhaps an emphasis on tuning the HD video side of things has made Panasonic forget that stills quality is something quite handy to have in a camera.

I know this is going to make me sound a grumpy old git, but this review is why these kinds of cameras exist. Watch all the reviews come in (just the prediction of an old cynic), dishing out superlatives to what is at best, a very mediocre camera. Johnny Punter, our poor unsuspecting consumer takes it all in and shells out yet moe dosh on the latest must have gadget. This is why Panasonic have removed Raw support, as the last time our friend Mr Punter encountered that, was when he forgot to change his microwave from defrost to full power!

8:36 pm - Wednesday, August 3, 2011

#4 wye photography

I think anybody who buys this camera should be arrested because obviously they are a pedo. I mean, come on guys, the camera companies are not charitable altruistic organisations. They are in existence to make money and they have to produce what they think will sell.

I don’t this camera wil sell well, maybe to the aforementioned pedos and terrorists (who only exist in the minds of paranoid state security).

So that’s 50,000 sold in the first case and perhaps 3 in the latter.

Poor show Panasonic!

9:43 pm - Wednesday, August 3, 2011

#5 Dana

Comon there are all sorts of +30x zoom bridge cameras out their for the Peter Philes of the world, so even in this regard this Panasonic is substandard. Most of them are cheaper and offer far superior image quality to the craptastic venus 1/2.3 sensor that has infected most of Panasonic upscale cameras. Heck they are even dragging their heels on their ancient M43 sensor these days and it compares hardly any better to its own aps-c competition.

2:21 am - Thursday, August 4, 2011

#6 Bee Jay

This camera seems to do well at base ISO and one of the shots taken at 600mills looks sharp & vibrant. But like Sony’s HX100V and most bridge cameras the 400+ ISO falls off far too rapidly. It looks to me that bridge camera can’t even compete with many compacts in lower light. I’d still recommend buying an SLR camera that’s a couple of years older, you can get telephoto kits for the same price as most of these bridge cameras.

12:30 pm - Thursday, August 4, 2011

#7 canvas printing

didnt think much to this modle images were not nearly as sharp as i had hoped very over priced for the quality

3:06 pm - Thursday, August 4, 2011

#8 Warren Lyons

While I think some of the readers’ comments are a little hard on this camera, I don’t see why panasonic bothered to come out with this new model.  All it has going for it is a drop to a more manageable, but still marketeable 12mp resolution, and even that shows no real improvements over its predessor.  While it isn’t a BAD camera, it lacks the image quality of the Sony HX100, the extreme zoom range of the Nikon P500 and Canon SX30, or the “bang for the Buck” of the Kodak Z990

4:08 pm - Friday, August 5, 2011

#9 Cynical

It’s very disappointing to see that Panasonic’s marketing department have forced the programmers to remove raw support from this model - with other FZ models, working with raw files is the only way to eliminate the yellow and purple Pannyblobs which occur in shots taken under tungsten lighting. Still, at least the image quality is better than the FZ100…

3:03 pm - Sunday, August 7, 2011

#10 vipul

I was about to buy panasonic fz47 this dec..but because of the review and poor image quality I am really confused now…right now having digital compact sony cybershot..and wana join superzoom series..my considerations were panasonic fz47,sony hx100,canon sx30 is..any good recommendation??
I want to use it for nature and wild life too..

4:09 pm - Tuesday, August 9, 2011

#11 andy clad

Do yourself a favour and buy a travel zoom compact. Much better than this Panasonic effort. I have a Canon SX220HS. Its great. We all have feet. So move a bit closer if you run out of zoom and compose your shot properly.

7:52 am - Wednesday, August 10, 2011

#12 Warren Lyons

Having been involved with digital photography for almost three years, starting with a Nikon P80 bridge camera, and adding a Canon SX30is superzoom, a Canon SX130is travel zoom, and an olympus EPL1 micro 4/3, I can say the following to vipul.  While my SX30 feels substantial and its handling mimics a DSLR in many ways, there is too much purple fringing and the pictures are too soft at even close to full zoom.  Were I to start out all over again, my first choice would be the Sony HX100, followed by the Nikon P500.  Were I on a tight budget, I would get the KodakZ990.  As for Andy’s comment, I do agree that today’s better travel zooms give far better IQ than superzooms.  My Canon SX130 takes far sharper pictures than the SX30.  However, sometimes you just can’t get close enough and you want/need that extra zoom. (my favorite subjects are ships at sea).  My advice to both vipul and andy is to get BOTH a superzoom and travel zoom and carry them both.  Use the travel zoom when you don’t need the extreme magnification, and the Superzoom when you need it or can’t see the viewfinder.  It’s still far lighter and cheaper than a DSLR and a bag full of lenses

3:44 pm - Thursday, August 11, 2011

#13 vipul

Thanks warren I really apreciate that…
I just found another review of this cam at http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-FZ47-Digital-Camera-Review/Canon-PowerShot-SX30-IS-Comparison.htm

6:03 pm - Thursday, August 11, 2011

#14 andy clad

I have owned a Panasonic FZ18 for a few years before passing it on to my brother. Lovely camera, but suffers from a lot of processing noise especially on faces. Can easily be sorted by shooting in raw. I was going to upgrade to the FZ100 last year. But my opinion of the stills side of the camera was that the noise reduction problems were worse. I got into photography by picking up a 2nd hand Olympus Trip 35 from a science fair. I own a Pentax KX and regularly take this around with me on days out with my trusty Pentax A 50mm F1.7 lens attached. To me depth of field is everything.
I bought the Canon SX220HS for a holiday abroad to Spain and was very impressed with picture quality of stills and video, especially in low light. Waiting for the update of the S95.

8:54 pm - Saturday, August 13, 2011

#15 Terry

Why are you guys so negative and hateful????  Are you trying to pose as experts by writing bad things?  Lighten up please. and be a little bit honest and quit piling on.  If you have the courage and fortitude to red an honest review by real EXPERTS go to

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-Lumix-FZ47-Digital-Camera-Review.htm

and read the entire review.  Don’t be fooled and go along with the crowd.  This is not the only very good review out there.  There are plenty others that are glowing about this camera.  There will still be haters that can’t stand the facts but that is their problem.  They will spend there pathetic lives being HATERS, instead of being thoughtful and objective.  But that is our world today I am afraid.

11:44 pm - Saturday, November 26, 2011

#16 VWC

I just purchased the FZ47/FZ48 and find that the photos are nothing like the samples here. They are much clearer and crisper. If I would have read this review before buying the camera, I probably would not have purchased it. I do agree that when it first came out it was a bit too expensive but I got mine for under $200 and am very happy with it.

11:21 pm - Thursday, December 15, 2011

#17 Anton

It seems to me that the sensor of the FZ-48 is also low(weak) as on serial Fuji S. There is many artefacts and noise already in 100ISO by dark time(weather), but the images are a little clearer(more net) and better in back lights than on Fuji, because the objective is better. But that justifies such a price difference? It is a personal conclusion, because I had the opportunity to compare FZ-48 and Fuji S-3400. On Panasonic there are more manual regulations, but Fuji has more natural colors.

1:52 pm - Sunday, January 29, 2012

#18 sammy

The fz47 is a fantastic camera. Many pro reviews say it has the best color reproduction of any camera ever tested, even besting the best DSLR’s. The problem with the camera is it is beyond difficult to figure out its mind boggling array of manual and combinations of settings.

There are just so many, and the manual does not due the camera justice,well (a small part of the manual that comes with it at least). But make no mistake, this camera takes outstanding photos once figured out.

(If figured out is the key word however) and i know more than a few experienced photographers who still shake there head in amazement at what this camera produces, when they found out what it cost they were floored.

The sample pics are nothing like the real life pics, maybe the sample pics would be similar if used at default settings but who uses those. This camera even takes stellar photos at full zoom.  Awesome

3:13 am - Tuesday, January 31, 2012

#19 sammy

Well it seems this site only allows reviews that share their what they think.

The fz 47/48 is a great camera, and until you figure out all its amazing features then your not giving it a chance.

In default form it takes very good pics but get to utilize more of it’s mind boggling array of specific modes and it’s a stellar performer.

I have many friends who are experienced photographers and they can’t believe the quality, especially for the $$$.

As mentioned above by Terry,this camera has the most accurate color reproduction of any camera tested to date including top DSLR’s( hey not my words, the words of the editorial staff of Digital Camera info.com

4:07 am - Tuesday, January 31, 2012

#20 Bill

I just returned from a trip to SE Asia.  I took over 2500 pictures with this camera in a lot of different lighting conditions over a month long trip.  The images are EXCELLENT!  The only ones that were challenging were inside very dimly lit temples (no flash allowed) but what camera does well in those conditions? Only very expensive DSLR’s and then only middling results.  This camera is so fast.  I got shots that would have been lost or blurry before.  Crisp shots with vibrant colors. This is a really good camera for the price.

6:52 pm - Tuesday, February 14, 2012

#21 Craig

Hi to all.

I’m certainly not a pro, but I was bored of compact camera quality, and was looking for a half-way decent camera for a reasonable price (300-400€). After deciding that a super-zoom bridge was the best option for me, the FZ47/48 was one of my top choices, but the comments here on PB really put me off! In the end, I trusted this and other reviews that gave it good marks, and I’m glad I did! I got it new for 290€, and I’m dead impressed with the results. I’ve had photography geeks try it out, and they too think that it’s great (obviously not as good as theirs, but it’s a fraction of what they spent!).

Don’t get put off like me at first by the comments here. I agree with the PB review, which would probably be even higher if the “value for money” was based on the price I got it for! Browse around for an offer.

Of course, this is based on my not-professional opinion, but if your looking for a ~300€ camera, I think it can be more helpful to you than some of the other critics at the top!

Oh! And compared to the older model (FZ40/45) I think the 1080 video and better quality is worth the 20€ difference in price. You lose RAW format, but let’s be honest, if RAW editing is that important to you, this is probably the wrong kind of camera anyway!

11:31 am - Wednesday, February 15, 2012

#22 David Rose

Hi

I do not normally comment but I have to inform anyone wanting to know whether to buy this camera. The answer is a resounding YES! I have had DSLRs, other super zoom cameras etc, and this camera blows them away with the image quality. I was reluctent to buy at first because of the lack of Raw processing, but I do not need it as the jpegs are the best I have seen sooc. It is fast, reliable and THE best camera I have ever had. Just on thing. Adjust sharpness in camera by +1 as it is a little soft. Buy!!

3:49 pm - Friday, March 23, 2012

#23 Rob Fieser

I like this camera a lot. I originally was set on the FZ150, but when the price for this camera dropped below $200 late last year, I went for it. Its image quality is about the same as that of an FZ28 which I owned three years ago. It has more zoom and is faster focusing than the FZ28 was. I had the SX30IS. It has more zoom, but I think the FZ47 is easier to use and more versatile. I hardly use the RAW capabilities of the FZ28 and don’t miss them on the FZ47.

1:46 am - Thursday, April 12, 2012

#24 Mike

Ignore the negative comments as this camera takes excellent images, granted at higher ISO the performance falls off but this is common with bridge cameras. I was tired of lugging around a ‘kit’ DSLR with it’s associated lenses & already have a compact camera. The bridge camera was the answer. I tried many & the one that shone above all the others was both the fz48 (fz47 in the USA) & the fz150. There were features on the fz150 I didn’t need & value for money the fz48 won. The DSLR & lenses are now being sold!

9:26 pm - Monday, May 7, 2012

#25 chris

Can not believe all the bad comments on the fz48, clearly these people think they know more than the expert reviewer. Great camera, easy to use, good clear sharp photos.

2:32 pm - Sunday, July 1, 2012

#26 George

hi, i bought the FZ47 after much reading of the reviews on the net, not just the site reviews but also the user reviews, like those posted here.  although the FZ47 isnt perfect i think it’s a great camera.  it does everything i ask of it as a point and shoot.  yes, it is over exposed in the iAuto mode but i overcame that by using the programme mode instead.  there i adjusted all i thought needed to be adjusted to get the picture i wanted…it worked.  the photos dont always turn out sharp but then thats what photo correction programmes are for.  all in all, i have some great photos with nicely balanced colour and wouldnt hesitate in recommending the Panasonic FZ47 to anyone but with this advice, get to know your camera which is good advice with anything we use.

6:38 am - Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Entry Tags

hd video, 3 inch LCD, review, 12 megapixel, video, movie, super-zoom, 1920x1080, 1080i, super zoom, wideangle, ultra-zoom, Panasonic, mega-zoom, Lumix, 24x, DMC-FZ47, dmc fz48, fz48, DMC-FZ48, dmc fz47, fz47

Tracker Pixel for Entry