Sue,

A wide angle is definitely the way to go. While a dSLR camera ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita...  ) with interchangeable lenses for different situations would be ideal in purpose, their prices may not align with what you're looking for. The bulkiness might also prove annoying for a real estate agent on the go. An ultra compact camera ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita...  ) would probably be great for you. The Panasonic FX30 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita...  ) is a 7.2 megapixel, ultra compact camera that comes with a 28mm equivalent wide angle lens capability. This will be great for your indoor and outdoor photos, while the high resolution will make the images nice and sharp when posting them on the web. Good luck and happy shooting.

Andrew

The FX30 with it's poor low-light capability will surely disappoint for real estate use. Full room shots are too far for the camera's flash and many rooms are poorly lit. Rooms look better in natural light, anyway.
A good low light performer and a wide angle conversion lens (available for many Canon Powershots) is your best option.

Yes, you can take closeups with Lumix FX30 without additional lens.

If you check the specifications of the camera, it has a macro mode that allows you to take pictures at close as 5 cm from the object.

You may log on to <a href="dpreview.com/news/0701/0701...  location</a> to see more details.

Well what you'll need to do is reencode the movie into something that moviemaker will accept. Or, forget movie maker (it's rather useless) and invest in Adobe Premiere Elements. About $100 and it gives you much better options and will import a wider array of formats.

But in the end, you are missing a codec and as such, WMM can't read the file. Find th codec and you can possibly make it work.

I'm almost certain it's brown, although I suppose it could be argued that it's a sort-of dusty rose beige color, which might explain the "oyster pink." But I see where your confusion is coming in. <a href="bizrate.com/digitalcameras/...  website claims brown/pink as the color; there also seems to be a "silicone skin" available in the color pink that fits over this camera.

The Panasonic website claims it's a brown, and they also say that colors may vary depending on country. I did a google search and every website that called it pink seemed to be a "co.uk" website, so maybe it's pink in Europe?

Cameras only get better as technology improves. (I guess that could be argued, with the whole "MPs don't mean better quality" myth). But you get my drift. The FX30 is a great camera, with a lot of features and wide-angle lens. If you want to stick with Panasonic, this is a good one to get, as my favorite Panasonic Lumix TZ3 is >$300 and isn't an option for your price range :)

Otherwise, you may want to look at a Canon camera, as I've had nothing but good experiences with skin tone and proper color when shooting. The SD800IS is a great camera and a good compare-it-to camera for the FX30, but it costs a little more at ~$270.

If you need a camera now, you won't be disappointed with the FX30. Here's a link you can go to, as well, to see amateur to professional pictures with the camera: flickr.com/search/?q=fx30&a... 

You can also check out a few of my SD800IS pictures at the same site: flickr.com/search/?q=mattk1...  And all SD800IS pictures at: flickr.com/search/?q=sd800&... 

Enjoy!

Well, I have a hard time believing it's >$300, since this here: amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FX...  for <$300 before its release. So it's not a bad price. It's not being released until October, though, so you still have a month to wait.

You're right, the FX30 doesn't have face detection. And the FX33 has more resolution. It also CLAIMS to have an ISO ability of 6400, which is just plain ridiculous -- the VENUS III NR system the Panasonic cameras use are bad enough, let alone cranking it up anything over ISO800!

You'll have to be careful with the "intelligent ISO control" as well, since Panasonic cameras (it may be different on this new model) always sets the ISO to something around ISO200 or higher, even if you're using flash, or there's enough light for ISO100. You may want to create a manual preset for ISO80 or ISO100 when you're in good lighting. No point in reducing image quality when there's absolutely no need.

The FX33 also has an underwater housing available, and more stamping features on your pictures (including text stamp).

I'm impressed by Panasonic's ability to improve on their cameras each year. I just wish their VENUS noise reduction engine would be changed.

Maybe by the time you're ready to buy the FX33, the FX35 will be nearing production :)

Considering Panasonic is now on VENUS III (just as Canon is on DIGIC III), I can't see Panasonic changing what they have in place. It would be quite an R&D hurdle.

There is a direct correlation between higher ISO's and higher noise. The reason I'm not fond of Panasonic's VENUS engine is because VENUS reduces noise by compromising smoothing the graininess, causing color and luminance detail to be lost. Canon, Fuji and other brands have a noise-reduction engine that accepts the noise reduction to keep the sharpness and detail/color intact. Why is this better? Because you can always post-process a picture and lower the sharpness in favor of noise manually -- you can't take a blurry, smudgy picture and make it sharp again. Fortunately, the Panasonic FX cameras are good up to ISO400, and above ISO400 the pictures will be fine for 4x6" prints if the scene doesn't rely too much on low contrast or fine color detail.

I have to stress this, though. The VENUS system isn't BAD bad, it's just not as good. For the average picture-taker (and especially on 4"x6" prints), no one will tell the difference.

When buying a camera, the first thing you have to accept is buyer's remorse. Take me for example: I bought the SD800IS in March, I think. Now the SD870IS is coming out, which is the better model. But I'm happy with what I bought, and I knew full-well there'd be another camera that would better what I had. However, I wouldn't have had a camera for 6 months if I'd have waited, and I'm glad I didn't wait.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Panasonic. The Lumix TZ3 is one of my favorite ultracompact cameras. But there were disadvantages to that camera that made me favor the SD800IS, just like some disadvantages of the SD800IS (lack of optical zoom being the most obvious) will make people pick the TZ3. Does that make sense?

I'd go so far to say that Panasonic, along with Pentax, are two of the most unrecognized brands for camera quality. Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fuji take all the limelight. But from the flickr website I sent you earlier, you can see for yourself that buying the FX33 won't be a mistake. Just be ready to accept a better camera when it comes out 6 months, 1 year, etc from now. :)

I understand your concerns. I went to the flickr site and think I found the picture you're referring to: Is it by aaronwtong, dated August 26, 2007?

One thing to notice is that he was taking pictures with the camera fresh out of the box. He didn't adjust default settings, increase sharpness, adjust color, etc. Also, depending on the monitor you're using to look at the pictures, the picture may be at a higher resolution than your monitor can view it at. I'm using a 22" HP widescreen monitor, and the picture looks completely fine. Also, the softness of the edges you may be seeing could be the position of the sun (the lighting), and also the contrasts between objects. For instance, the lefthand side of the picture has the building in strong sunlight bordered by a brilliant blue sky. The right side is slightly out of the sunlight and has a lot of busy, muddled textures and elaborate, geometrical designs. To the eye, the less cluttered, "clean" view is on the left side, and we find it more attractive. To me, I don't see anything wrong with the right side. If you're worried about barrel distortion, don't worry -- if there was, you'd most likely see symmetrical aberrations on both sides of center, not just the right side. :)

Also important is that, when printed (especially on a small 4"x6" photo), you wouldn't even be able to tell the softness/sharpness differences if they even were present to begin with. In order for those differences, you'd likely need a minimum of a 8"x10" picture professionally done (ie, not an inkjet).

I understand where you're coming from with the oddly colored trees, though. The brilliance of the green is distracting and almost "unreal". Some camera manufacturers (Canon included, actually), prefer the more vivid, overly saturated colors so they pop out at you. You can tone that down. Again, out of the camera, he certainly didn't do that. Oddly enough, though, you didn't mention the beautiful sky... that blue is unrealistically clean, but we tend to look past the sky. The larger tree in the middle, though, does look to be slightly shaded near the middle bottom, which could account for the dark and light patches in the trees leaves.

And finally, the picture of the people in the park. Notice the two on the far left. They are affected most by the glare of the sun. Most cameras have an issue with chromatic aberration (ie, dark contrast suddenly hitting light contrast). This usually causes a purple fringe along the border. In this case, the camera overcompensated and started to oversaturate the strong contrast areas, namely each man's left shoulder and face. Oversaturation leads to bleeding and reduced detail because the color detail is reduced. If you're thinking the reason may have been the lack of facial detection, that may be a part of it, too, since the other four men on the right do have slightly blurred faces. HOWEVER, you have to remember that the photographer may be an amateur, OR intentionally focused on something other than their faces. Oddly, the man standing up has the most definition even though he's the most washed out. The photographer may have locked the autofocus on him, panned right, and took a picture. Even the tree in the background has detail, leading me to believe he autofocused elsewhere.

It's good you're looking into all these shots. But flickr.com, along with any other picture site, has pictures ranking from amateur to professional. I'm sure you'll find other pictures that help you believe what this camera can do.

Any other questions, keep asking :)

I haven't heard of the default settings of the FX33. In my experience, the best settings to make are the ones you like best. If you don't want the picture-ish, soft edges, increase the sharpness +1. If you don't like the strong, bright, punchy colors, play around with the color settings and white balance. On a bright day, take pictures on all settings, print them all out, and decide which you like better (make a note of which settings you had on each picture so you know what to put your settings at when you look at the print-outs!) If you don't want to pay for the practice pictures, sign up for a CVS card and open an online picture account -- you get 30-40 free 4"x6" pictures. The most important thing is to practice and experiment, and not just take point-and-shoot all the time.

And a word of caution: I can't guarantee the FX33 will improve on everything with the FX30. I haven't had the chance to play with the camera myself. You may want to wait a few weeks after release to see amazon.com reviews and one or two professional reviews online before grabbing this camera. There have been a lot of cameras (the Fuji F40fd comes to mind) that haven't been as good as the previous model (oh yeah, the Canon SD1000 comes to mind, too).

PS - If the FX33 is a better camera than the W80 or W90, then is there anyway to permanently adjust the settings to get a similar soft face look? As a novice picture taker, I probably won't re-adjust my settings for every single picture, so these two pics are comparing two "out of the box" set cameras. While I usually adjust the basic settings, I really don't want to have to be super technical with my new camera as far as constantly adjusting it. I look forward to hearing from you when you get a moment.

Thanks!

Thanks for your response and you are once again right. The pictures were totally different and the ISO had not been adjusted on my FX07. Good news, I just purchased the FX33 from Panasonic's store and promise to pay more attention to the settings. I should get it next week and may check back in if I have any questions. Thanks again for your help!!

Hi again!
So, I got my camera about a month ago and I still can't seem to get the soft pictures I am used to on my old Sony Cybershot. I take a lot of people pictures and so far, none of my friends like their pictures on my camera. Everyone just looks washed out and unflatteringly-captured. I know it sounds rediculous, but I have found myself leaving my camera at home, which is very unlike me. I tried slowing my shutter speed with a softened flash, but that lowered the quality of the rest of the picture and still didn't help with the tone. I am frustrated and wondering if I should sell my perfectly good, brand new camera and just go for a Sony Cybershot. I hear their new ones have HD quality. Do you know anyone who might be interested in a brand new black FX 33? I feel silly going through all of this, but the FX33 might be more percise than I need...which also doesn't make sense, but hopefully you understand somewhat where I am coming from. I look forward to your wise feedback.
Thanks,
Katie

Thanks Matt. You have inspired me to be patient:)

Between the two cameras, the FX30 is the better camera. Although, to be fair, the upgrades are minor, with the most notable difference being the 28mm wideangle lens. Other small differences include a slightly stronger flash, a slightly larger aperture range (although, admittedly, it's on the wrong side of the range to be that beneficial), and a better LCD screen.

ISOs of 100 and 200 won't have real noticeable noise.... if anything, there may be odd loss of detail in the shadows (dark areas)... but nothing you'd notice on screen or in 4x6" pictures. And this possible noise would only be in certain types of pictures where high contrast (like taking a picture of someone in the shade, with the sun in the background, while you're in the shade as well)... it's not a big issue, and mainly for the pixel-peepers trying to find fault. For the average consumer, it would be hard to tell.

please send my email to: bhive1@gmail.com. thank you much!

Harry,

While the Kodak brand has been around for a while, I have heard that there are quality issues with their digital camera line. I'm not sure the 513 is listed here, but the C533 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita...  ) is, and it has an overall rating of a C out of a F through A grading list. There are a lot better cameras out there.

If you're looking for something in the same price range and about the same size, I would recommend the Canon SD1000 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita...  ) or the Panasonic FX30 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita...  ). I have had a Canon pocked camera for almost 6 years and it still works great, and the Panasonic has some great features like a wider angle lens for group shots and Image Stabilization. I hope this helps.

Andrew

Bogdan,

The Lumix software may help. What file-type are the movies recorded in (.wmv, .wav, etc.)? It may be a software issue on your computer.

Andrew

Bogdan,

This sounds like an issue with the movie players you are using, not the files. I would actually remove some of the players that aren't working from you by uninstalling them through the control panel. If you're interested in trying a different movie player specifically designed for .mov files, I would try Quicktime. You can get a free download from Apple ( apple.com/quicktime/  ).

Andrew

Bogdan,

Glad we could help. Please come back with any other issues or questions.

Andrew

Well that's the problem. Once you take the clips off the camera and then transcode them into something else, the camera won't be able to play them unless you've converted them using the same codec the camera uses.