Panasonic Lumix ZR1
| Fetching our Best Offer… |
We've given the ZR1 a grade of B+.
Read why: Editor's comments
Read why: Editor's comments
This product is ranked
| 38th | of 62 | in Point and Shoot |
| 21st | of 32 | in Panasonic |
| 65th | of 104 | in 11 & 12 Megapixels |
| 30th | of 46 | in $200 - $300 |
Store Ratings and Offer Details for the Panasonic Lumix ZR1
| Store Rating | Store Name | Price | Visit Store |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | |||
|
|||
Editors' Comments
The Panasonic ZR1 is a compact point-and-shoot camera with an impressive 8x optical zoom lens and 12.1-megapixel sensor, providing a robust image-taking experience. That lens, while long, is also wide, with 25mm wide-angle capabilities as well. The ZR1 also has a high-definition movie mode capable of shooting video clips at 720p, 30fps.
Specifications
- 12.1 megapixels
- 8x optical zoom, 25mm wide-angle lens
- Panasonic POWER O.I.S.
- HD movie mode (720p, 30fps)
- 2.7-inch LCD display
- SD/SDHC memory storage
Product Information
| Manufacturer | Panasonic |
|---|---|
| Part Number | DMCZX1EFK |
| UPC | 037988263721 |
| Release Date | Sep 01, 2009 |
ZR1 Accessories:
Panasonic Lumix ZR1 Comments & Questions (write your own!)
I can't connect my camera to my computer to upload pictures (annieboitano — 12/26/2009)
I have tried installing the program from the CD provided before/after/during hooking up my camera to my computer with its USB cord and there is no evidence of any hardware or pictures from my camera anywhere on my computer. I've even tried uninstalling everything and restoring my computer to an earlier time. Nothing seems to work and I cannot get my pictures to upload to my computer from the camera. Please help!
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (12/26/2009)
A common mistake is to forget to set your camera to USB MODE. This enables the camera to communicate with the computer. See pg. 28 of your manual.
reply to this comment
Brenda Paro (12/28/2009)
You can also buy a card reader, which connects to your computer, and then you insert the memory card into that rather than into the camera to upload the photos. Card readers are about ten bucks and are super handy to have. They save wear and tear on your camera. I had an older Kodak camera that I used for a few years and uploaded photos from it to my computer, and eventually the ability to do so actually wore out. (The USB plug on the camera stopped functioning). So even if yours is shot or if you can't figure it out, you can still get your photos if you use a card reader.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (12/30/2009)
Another option is the Eye-Fi SD cards, which enable you to connect to your PC wirelessly with the Eye-Fi software. It works pretty great and you can even get a model which has GPS built in. Eye-Fi is really the happy medium between finicky and poorly written camera drivers and using a USB Card reader.
reply to this comment
annieboitano (12/30/2009)
After putting it into a different computer, I found that it worked perfectly, even without the software on the CD that came with the camera... So I did more research and figured out that it's actually something that has to do with my computer... The Scanner and Camera Wizard that usually pops up never came up when I hooked the camera to the computer with the USB cord. So I think it has something to do with that and how my computer just won't recgonize the camera. Is it possible that the cleaner I use for my computer (ATF-Cleaner) has deleted some of the important registry keys for the Camera Wizard to work? I'm not an expert on any of this so I did not want to go ahead and assume that that is what's wrong with it or try to manually add or remove anything by myself.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (12/30/2009)
Oh it's entirely possible. in fact, probably. I don't really care for "cleaners," as they can create more problems than they actually solve. Did you try and go into the wizard manually.
reply to this comment
annieboitano (12/30/2009)
Yes, I tried to go to the wizard manually and all that shows up on there is the camera that's already built into my computer. Also when I go to My Computer, no hardware or any evidence of the camera shows up there either. When I hook up the camera to my computer, it shows that the computer has found SOMETHING because of the little notification that says "found DMC-ZR1" but the computer doesn't know what it is and I can't find any traces of the camera anywhere other than in that notification.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/05/2010)
Have you installed the drivers that came with the camera? It should be on a CD. If not, you can go to the Panasonic website to download and install them. Or, you can forget it altogether and go with a USB card reader. Plug your card into it and your computer will think it's a hard drive. Then it's a simple drag and drop to the desktop. Far better than dealing with finicky camera connections.
reply to this comment
Use a card reader (Dave — 02/13/2010)
You will find that it is MUCH faster and will not drain your camera batteries if you simply hook up a card reader to your computer for picture downloading. A card reader costs about $20 and hooks up to your USB port. Very simple!
reply to this comment
Does this camera take decent pictures in low light conditions? (lneid209 — 12/30/2009)
My camera that I own now struggles to take a clear picture in low light conditions and I can't stand it. The pictures often come out blurry. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this camera in low light conditions and could testify about its performance. Thanks.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (12/30/2009)
There's a few reviews on amazon.com ( amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-ZR... ) which claim the camera's low light performance just doesn't cut it. The fact of the matter is, with a pocket size camera like this, you're going to be saddled with a tiny 1/6" CCD and when you stuff that with 12 MP, you end up with a ton of noise at high ISO. especially at this price point.
reply to this comment
Larry (01/02/2010)
These small point and shoot digital cameras simply can not be made to take decent low light shots when stuffed with more than 4 MP.
However, that being said, there are factors that can improve the situation:
1) faster lens such as the Canon Powershot S90 which comes in with a f2.0 lens!
2) larger CCD sensor- such as the Canon Powershot S90 which is 1/1.7" (most are now 1/2.3" which is smaller)
3) fewer MP- such as the Canon Powershot S90 with 10MP (versus the 12MP or more on many)
reply to this comment
However, that being said, there are factors that can improve the situation:
1) faster lens such as the Canon Powershot S90 which comes in with a f2.0 lens!
2) larger CCD sensor- such as the Canon Powershot S90 which is 1/1.7" (most are now 1/2.3" which is smaller)
3) fewer MP- such as the Canon Powershot S90 with 10MP (versus the 12MP or more on many)
by James DeRuvo (01/05/2010)
Larry is right ... almost. Actually, the "sweet spot" for point and shoots is 6MP. But he was close. ;)
Let me explain. I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering ( 6mpixel.org/en/? ) ñ a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany ñ the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they donít have a ìdog in this hunt,î they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.
The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, thereís more data on the chip, but the chip canít absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since weíre talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply arenít being made.
Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."
In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.
reply to this comment
Let me explain. I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering ( 6mpixel.org/en/? ) ñ a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany ñ the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they donít have a ìdog in this hunt,î they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.
The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, thereís more data on the chip, but the chip canít absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since weíre talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply arenít being made.
Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."
In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.
sak (04/20/2010)
hi - i liked your analysis. which camera(s) do you think is a good example of balancing characteristics as you describe? (i.e. fewer megapixels that can be better handled by the necessarily smaller lens on a point-and-shoot). thanks!
reply to this comment
Mary (01/23/2010)
what kind of battery doest this camera take?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/30/2010)
It's a proprietary lithium-ion battery. ID-Security Li-ion Battery Pack (3.6V, 895mAh)
reply to this comment
Looks like a good deal (Jim — 02/06/2010)
On sale with a $50 coupon at Costco until 2/28/2010
reply to this comment
Final decision (Rachelle — 02/15/2010)
I have narrowed down my purchase to the ZR1, Canon SD 1200 or Canon SX120. I mostly take pictures of my young children. What would your pick be?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (02/18/2010)
Panasonic is making great cameras right now, but so is Canon. Honestly, I think either would work just fine. It largely depends on if it's a pocketbook camera or not. If you want one more compact, then the SD1200 is probably the best bet. If you want more zoom, I'd go with the SX120.
reply to this comment
slvr (03/21/2010)
I'm trying to decide between a ZR1 and a ZS3. Is the price difference worth it for the ability to shoot good pictures at low light conditions (ZS3)?
reply to this comment
slvr (03/21/2010)
I've been going over some reviews and it seems like the Panasonic FH20 is also good. Which of the 3 do you recommend? I take both indoor and outdoor photos as well as shoot some videos while in concerts. Thanks.
reply to this comment
Liam McCabe (04/08/2010)
Out of all of these, the ZS3 is probably the most advanced and you'll get the best results. The FH20 is the easiest to use, still very good results for the money, we really like this camera.
reply to this comment
Poor image quality (James Kalamias — 04/28/2010)
I recently purchased a ZR1 and have noticed that the image quality produced is nowhere near the quality of my 10 year old Pentax Optio. That camera only had 4.1 megapixels and 3 x zoom by comparison. I am finding that in many pics the individuals in the centre of frame are reasonably sharp but everything (and everyone) else is quite grainy. Could this have anything to do with either of the following:
1) I have set the megapixels down to 5 so that i can get more images on my memory card
2) Selecting the IA mode - this seems to lock in the faces in the centre of frame and may be not focusing on everything else?
3) a cheaper memeory card
4) using the zoom
Interested in anyone's thoughts/ experiences on this as the quality by comparison has been thus far extremely disappointing.
reply to this comment
1) I have set the megapixels down to 5 so that i can get more images on my memory card
2) Selecting the IA mode - this seems to lock in the faces in the centre of frame and may be not focusing on everything else?
3) a cheaper memeory card
4) using the zoom
Interested in anyone's thoughts/ experiences on this as the quality by comparison has been thus far extremely disappointing.
Liam McCabe (04/28/2010)
1) Downsizing pictures can in some cases degrade the image quality, because it gets captured at the full 12 MP and then smushed down to a smaller size.
2) It's possible
3) I don't think this would affect the image quality, only the speed at which the images write to the card.
4) It shouldn't but if the camera shakes, then yeah it make the pictures look grainy.
I haven't used the ZR1, but I did just review the ZR3. If they're anything alike, you should poke around in the menus to see if you can adjust the number of points the auto-focus uses. If you cast a wider net (9 points instead of 1) it should help with the problem.
reply to this comment
2) It's possible
3) I don't think this would affect the image quality, only the speed at which the images write to the card.
4) It shouldn't but if the camera shakes, then yeah it make the pictures look grainy.
I haven't used the ZR1, but I did just review the ZR3. If they're anything alike, you should poke around in the menus to see if you can adjust the number of points the auto-focus uses. If you cast a wider net (9 points instead of 1) it should help with the problem.
James Kalamias (04/28/2010)
thamks Liam
reply to this comment
Lumix ZR1 vs FH 20 (Andrew Beckerman — 05/06/2010)
hi there,how does this camera compare to the FH20? this appears slightly smaller a plus imo; leica lens; less megapixels
is there something i'm missing. there seems to be more info/reviews of FH 20
cheers
andrew
reply to this comment
is there something i'm missing. there seems to be more info/reviews of FH 20
cheers
andrew
Liam McCabe (05/07/2010)
We never got the ZR1 for review, so we don't know as much about it. It is last year's version of the ZR3, which is why it's similarly priced to the FH20 -- retailers are trying to clear the shelves of the old models.
Spec for spec, the two cameras are pretty similar. ZR1 is a little smaller I believe, and yes there are fewer megapixels (this doesn't really matter). But from what I've read, the FH20 low-light performance is better than the ZR1. Noisy low-light shots was the number 1 complaint I heard about the ZR1, so I'm thinking there's some truth to it. Hope this helps.
reply to this comment
Spec for spec, the two cameras are pretty similar. ZR1 is a little smaller I believe, and yes there are fewer megapixels (this doesn't really matter). But from what I've read, the FH20 low-light performance is better than the ZR1. Noisy low-light shots was the number 1 complaint I heard about the ZR1, so I'm thinking there's some truth to it. Hope this helps.
thx (Andrew Beckerman — 05/07/2010)
dear liam, thanks for your response. i thought that less megapixels was better for low light conditions. why are manufacturers pushing these high megapixel cameras my dream machine would be under 10 megapixels w/ minimum 7x optical zoom , a viewable in daylight LCD and weight of 135 grams but i don't see it out there
cheers andrew
reply to this comment
cheers andrew
Panasonic Lumix ZR1 Reviews
Panasonic Lumix ZR1 Reviews by Digital Camera-HQ Users
- 2.0 out of 5
Terrible low light performance!
(IndyDave — 06/16/2010)
I was very quickly disappointed with the low light performance. Like, the first day I got it. This is in comparison to a Canon TX-1 which I have had for years and hasn't been available for quite some time. I really regret that my girlfriend spent her hard earned money to buy it for me. I haven't been able to bring myself to tell her how disappointed I am.
If you have plenty of light, it seems to be average. But in low light, yuck!
I am used to digital cameras having grainy images (without flash) and videos in low light, and I'm OK with that. It is to be expected. But the ZR1's low-light output is simply not useable. I am intimately familiar with all the various settings, but no getting over the basic trouble.
If I have plenty of light, I take it over my TX-1 because it is smaller and does fine in the best of settings. I will probably take this places normally reserved for a ruggedized camera and risk breaking it. When it breaks, I won't be too disappointed.
