GearShop

News Reviews Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Articles Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

NewsMay 2014

Previous news story Next news story

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 Real-world Samples Gallery

By dpreview staff on May 27, 2014 at 17:10 GMT

Buy on GearShop From $397.99

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 (TZ60 outside of North America) is a compact travel zoom camera with a 30X, 24-720mm equiv. lens and 18.1 megapixel 'high sensitivity' MOS sensor. The ZS40 features both a 3-inch (920k dot) LCD as well as an electronic viewfinder (200k dot). The camera has full manual controls, Raw support, focus peaking, plus a control ring. We've been out shooting with it, ahead of publishing a short review. Click the links below to take a look at our real-world samples.

View our Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 real-world samples gallery

There are 36 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution.

SAMPLE GALLERY GALLERY PANASONIC SAMPLES

Comments

Total comments: 83

I found something very odd at http://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/12322392155/in/photostream/
There is a bird (?) that appears to have artifacts caused by video interlacing--except it was supposedly from a still shot. What could cause this?
I would add a screenshot but I can't see any way to do so.

0 upvotes

Serious jaggies on most of the images if you click "zoom in." FZ150 never did this, nor did the LF1--so it can't be blamed on the 1/2.3" sensor. Is it due to excessive pixel density and tiny pixel size? Or something in the way the camera was set up? Images by Camera Labs don't seem to have this flaw.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I guess the quality is OK for a 1/2.3"...

1 upvote

i'd love to see a review of this camera up against Olympus's new SH-1.

0 upvotes

I can see corner softness in some images (ie photo 12: P1000135_ACR) even after downsizing the picture to 640*480. That is seriously horrible. At least there's the LF1 for those who still give a toss about image quality.

0 upvotes

Pana produces real nice P&S.

I wish I have started with Pana and not Canon.

1 upvote

Why does it matter? It's a P&S, not a system. You can switch anytime.

0 upvotes

It's possible that it's just an isolated rotational shake caused by mashing the button overzealously; but I'm wondering whether the lens on the sample camera might be decentered? It's really visible on P1000102, the whole right hand side is way off on that one. Also to a lesser extent on P1000135.

Barney; if you still have the camera, would it be possible for you to take a similar shot (in terms of left and right hand subject detail, and similar focal length zoom), but from a tripod in remote timer; please?

0 upvotes

Looks like it may be decentered. Corners look like they're ghosting. I have the ZS40 and mine has some loss of contrast in the corner at wide angle but not ghosting like in the letters of the rockstar machine P1000063.

Edit: There are other reviews on the web that can produce better results.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

For all the cameras with zoom power that I've owned, my first shots with them was the moon. God had placed the moon up there in synchronous orbit for a reason. It's easier to compare the same moon's face as seen by all eyes and all cameras.

2 upvotes

Are you really inferring that God placed the moon in the sky so gearheads can compare telephoto and camera performance....really?

6 upvotes

"It's easier to compare the same moon's face as seen by all eyes and all cameras."

No its not. By a lot.

- The orbit of the moon is not perfectly synchronous. Visible size of the moon is variable.

- The IQ would depend on the quality of the air at the moment of shot. Dusty vs. cloudy vs. clear.

- The IQ would depend on the position of the moon. Higher it is, less of the atmosphere light has to travel through, and sharper is the shot.

- The IQ would depend on the amount of surrounding light reflected by the dust in atmosphere. Shooting in the city vs. shooting in a field, far away from the artificial ground light sources.

1 upvote

The moon is far beyond synchronous orbit -- roughly 250,000 miles up vs. about 20,000 miles. It would sure look bigger 10x closer, and much easier to photograph. Tides would be pretty "exciting", too!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

First of All, the moon is not on (geo)synchronous orbit, it's on a high orbit. You are confusing with TIDAL LOCKING, which doesn´t mean it's always perfectly aligned to the earth, google "libration", Second, God didn´t place anything in the sky, The moon was formed after a collision of a large Kuiper Belt Object with earth roughly 4 billions years ago. Google: "giant impact".

1 upvote

Short and not so sweet. Not impressed with the quality of the sample images at all.

2 upvotes

Why this one? Are you going to test the other pocketable 30X(or whatever) zooms? Recent magazine (Chasseur d'Image) has Canon SX700HS, Nikon S9700, Panasonic TZ60 and Sony DSC-HX60V.
Gives the nod to the Canon as (least bad) but as usual there are pros and cons so a comparison is worth reading as ones' priorities may be different.
Also, someone else mentioned a Casio......
Incidentally, for us unbelievers, the review did mention that the stabilisation made these extreme zooms usable in good light (speeds of 1/30th with non-shaky hands!)

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting

1 upvote

as a sort of PS - the Panny didn't do too bad, but they also had the lens as being pretty poor at the long end - rather odd to see a Leica branded lens as the weakest. As part of the reason for buying this one over an Lf1, for example, is the long lens it's a bit disappointing...........

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

The LF1 lens wasn't reviewed very well either, tho I guess it's all about context. Looked poor next to an LX7, looked better next to a ZS but I dunno how much of that was down to the lens or the larger/lower MP sensor.

I like my LF1 and still use it despite preferring my M4/3 in most cases. Sometimes even a camera on a strap is too much bulk and I need something pocketable (but cheaper than an RX100, if only Sony had some competition there).

The LF1's range is still uniquely useful compared to other larger sensor compacts, I got some great DMB concert shots with it last summer (even used the EVF for stability's sake).

0 upvotes

This was helpful! The comparisons are interesting. I have been looking to upgrade my finepix f300exr, but now think it’s just a little bit early. I keep it in a semi hard-shell case that pockets very easy, and it goes with me everywhere instead of my huge Nikon outfits that almost need a roll along to carry round. My Samsung s4 phone is a backup that in ways is superior. The zs-40 is almost there, but the picture quality reviews and samples show it needs more tweaking. This may seem ridiculous but a flash mount and wired remote would catapult this camera into a must have. I know the wifi can do it, but it will overload my phone which is a little bulky for the job. I want to trigger with a couple fingers not two hands, and a small fully articulated flash head would do wonders.

0 upvotes

I'm a "Chasseur d'Images" reader, and they gave exactly the same mark to ZS40 and SX700. Don't show half the truth.

0 upvotes

Like I said it didn't do too bad. As a reader of said magazine you will note the words under the Canon review:
'Au final, meme si ca ne saute pas aux yeux dans nos notes, le Canon est le moins pire des quatre "big zooms" testes ce mois-ce.'
No accents - not sure how DPR handles them. If you need a translation....

0 upvotes

He he, couldn't resist it. Here's a Google translation:

"In the end, even if it does not immediately obvious in our notes, Canon is the least worst of the four "big zoom" tested this month that."

- almost as bad as my French:)

0 upvotes

I think ZS40 is really underestimated. RAW helps having equal noise performance to Canon under ISO800, and a better one from ISO800 onwards. I use the widest angle at 3:2 shape, and It eliminates completely the bad corner performance. From 35 to 300mm, it's better than the Canon. Over 400mm, Canon takes the lead but not by that much (look at Cameralabs review). To sum it up, I would never buy the Canon, but the Panny into these restrictions suits me very well. And it's a joy to use outdoors.

0 upvotes

Actually, I probably won't buy either - but if I did it would be the Panny because it has an EVF and being long-sighted I have to use glasses for screens. It's tempting - the reality is that I don't need top notch stuff as most of my pictures are either used as a basis (or bits taken from them) for paintings or put on the internet.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I bought one of these, along with a Fuji X20 as a travel camera for a trip to Canada. Sadly, the IQ is truly awful, especially if one ups the ISO a bit. I think the TZ10 I had a few years back produced better quality JPEGs. Certainly the Fuji is far superior, though its focal range is much more limited. I think Panasonic crammed in too many pixels for the sensor: who, using a point and shoot, needs 18 MP, anyway? It's a pity, because the camera has a lot of cool features which would otherwise make it an ideal travel camera.

0 upvotes

I don't know. I downloaded a couple of photos, and I wouldn't call the IQ "truly awful". The images looked like they would print well at 8x10. I'm not sure how much more you can ask of this class of camera.

As for the 18 Mp, aren't you able to choose a lower resolution in the menu? The first thing I did with the downloaded photos was resize them to 3072x2304, or 7 Mp. That would be more than enough for my purposes. I'd prefer to shoot that way, if possible.

1 upvote

Exactly my point. 18MP permit better processing with more data, than you downsize and get better files. It gives better results than Canon SX700 that many are praising, and than my old Fuji F770exr (ZS40 is more consistent).

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

One of the more odd facets of this camera, is that you can't adjust sharpness, saturation, or contrast in camera.

Panasonic left out these options.

Inexplicable. I bought this camera as a true P&S, and didn't want to even think about post.

I returned it.

0 upvotes

They did that with the other viewfinder model camera too, who makes those decisions!!???

0 upvotes

high ISO's are unacceptable for today's standards. Highlights are excessively blown out with color fringing. It may be exposing for the shadows though, which is doing something interesting. Maybe if you care about shadows and not the highlights.

2 upvotes

I had some hopes this camera could become the successor of my ten years old Olympus C-70Z, with the additional benefit of a longer zoom range, but now I see it cannot, because even scaled down to the Olympus' 7 MP the Panasonic images are much worse. Having looked around some more, I'm not even sure the DMC-LF1 can be that successor, as its lens shows some image quality issues, too. I'll be checking that again, though...

0 upvotes

Comparing a 5x zoom to 30x zoom cam is a flawed comparison.

0 upvotes

Why do I continue to carry a heavy kit of DSLR body and multiple lenses? Years ago, I used to take my FZ30 on a trip -- and that was it.

0 upvotes

Because it takes significantly better pictures and it offers much more creative options.

1 upvote

Not bad but far from FZ200 Leica-made zoom. 25-600/2.8 lens is razor sharp thru the zoom at any F-stop. FZ200 is 2012 year model, still the best in its class.

1 upvote

It's a bit early to judge, there's nothing at the long end at all; it's pretty much a random collection of shots, from someone who likes the immediacy of wide angle.

If these are truly representative, though, I'd sum it up as "disappointing". Soft corners, lots of CA at full wide; seems to be struggling with noise reduction even at relatively low ISO. I think I see posterization of the red peppers. There's rather extreme pincushion distortion as well, adding to the corner problems. ISO 6400 is for web photos only. Ugly.

As one of the previous commentators said, compared to my ZS15 it's a bust, not a worthy replacement at all. Too bad, too; Panasonic had me at "viewfinder".....

2 upvotes

why so few long end photos? i would like to see raw conversions of those...the appeal of the camera is the long zoom.

4 upvotes

exactly my thought, but since I own one, let me tell you that it's very good only until 300mm eq, then it's only fair.

3 upvotes

thanks! too bad...no point to have 720mm and only use to 300mm

1 upvote

From 300 to 500 it's fair and perfectly usable. Above, it's still usable but you'd better downsize the files to meet the lens resolving power. I like them at 5 or 8 MP. Look at my thread explaining the lens longest focal performance:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3667299

1 upvote

Altruisto, i realy dont see them as bad, at all. With this sensor size, what people do expect? with this lens? Perfectly usable for good lightning and prints up to 8x12 or maybe a little bigger...imo

0 upvotes

I can understand why it will be a short review. Not up to snuff. (And I should check where that expression came from.)

0 upvotes

Too many Megapixels, price tooo high.

Anyway, DPReview: Listen to the people that uses this kind of cameras and not to those who doesn't, and do a comparative including the main cameras of each brand, including the Casio EX-ZR800 (or the ZR850 if you are lucky to get one). This kind of cameras is what people buys more (camera phones apart obviously) because there's much more casual shooters than enthusiast or professionals.

And, by the way, test too the special modes: HDR in camera, Intelligent Auto modes, extended multi shot zoom, night modes, etc in usual situations.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

I'd guess for the ordinary travel photographer or soccer mum into holidays the quality is good enough - given the way small & typical 1/2.33" sensor size - i've seen much worse pictures from this sensor size into the past, and people get raw support to play with, what do they want more? - perhaps a bigger sensor and faster lens, but not into this type of camera size & price range.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Anyone performing apologetics for this product: please have a look at samples of its predecessor, ZS15. Then you'll see that 1/2.3" can be done right.

No extreme highlight overexposures, no unpleasant corner softness.

2 upvotes

The corner softness is a show stopper for me.

4 upvotes

I use AE bracketing and raw. Solves the exposure problem. Corner softness does not bother me. I rather have that than a large interchangeable body and multiple lenses.

0 upvotes

@Bokeh - a slight exaggeration. Of course you have to sacrifice something to get corner sharpness. A slightly bigger sensor and a shorter zoom maybe. No need for large bodies and several lenses.

2 upvotes

I wish all manufacturers would up the ante and give us at least 1/1.7" sensors in the compacts, from 2015 onwards. (Though even my short-lived Canon S110 was not that impressive - much happier with my Olympus XZ-2, recently purchased at 1/2 price [$300].)

1 upvote

Oh, sorry. And yes, I completely agree that the old ZS15 samples are far superior - why is that, Panasonic? :( These ZS40 samples remind me of my old (and long since departed) Canon SX20. Like shooting through gauze.

0 upvotes

The corner softness here is abnormal. I have ZS40, and use it extensively in RAW. Never had such bad wide angle samples.
Look at my photos in this thread, including wide angle too. I have none of these blown highlights or stong corner softness. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3673825

2 upvotes

Just looked and - well done. :)

0 upvotes

Regarding corner softness:

I own a Canon SX230HS. I've installed CHDK on it. I get truly raw images, without any funny business from the manufacturer. I think most people would be shocked at how much manipulation of these photos is done in this class of camera, especially stretching pixels, before you see a "raw" image.

A lens with this much zoom produces an image circle that is (way!) too small at wide angle. Pre-manipulation, this camera probably produces images that have no data whatsoever in the corners (black) at wide angle, with a fisheye-type circle of light in the middle, that is stretched out to fill the frame to give you a "raw" image. Hence the extremely soft corners at wide angle. There should be a sweet spot somewhere in the zoom range, though, where you can get relatively sharp corners, because the image circle fills the frame without the need for correction.

Travel zooms are what they are. I love them, but they aren't for pixel peepers.

0 upvotes

My favourite print size is A4
If an A4 print is pin sharp with no intrusive noise or artifacts. Then it is good enough for displaying to friends and family!
If a TZ60 can do this and we can carry it in a pocket with a 30X zoom then it's a technical marvel. 10 years ago common pocket cameras only had a 3X zoom.

1 upvote

For a sharp A4 you need approx. 6 sharp MP. Some of the images might be able to pass that test, but most do not. By far too bad corners on many of the images.

2 upvotes

I have some great A4 prints even from a 2MP camera (FinePix 2800)!

0 upvotes

A 2MP Bayer is "pixel sharp" at 1 MP. 1 MP is approx 800x1200 pixels. An A4 is 290x210 mm. So ... there are 4 sharp pixels per mm, or 100 sharp pixels per inch. That is the same resolution as my monitor. Yeah, pictures might look very good at a monitor. So, why not great prints from a 2 MP Bayer sensor. To avoid pixelisation when looking up close you have to do some smoothing though, so a 6 MP sensor will probably be able to make visually sharper images.

0 upvotes

I wouldn't say that you "need" 6 Mp to print A4. You can do it with 2 Mp, as other posters have pointed out, and get quite sharp prints. It depends on the subject matter, and the camera. My first digital was a cheap 2 Mp Kodak point and shoot, and it printed 8x10 no problem, and the prints were nice and sharp (and colorful!).

I guess one way of thinking of this is looking at pictures or video on a computer screen. 1920 x 1080 is 2 Mp. Is nothing ever sharp in HD video? Even if downsized to an 8x10 print? That resolution looks sharp to me, in many cases...

0 upvotes

It is a 1/2.3 inch sensor. They are never good at pixel level. So 18 MP might be somewhat overdone for such a small sensor. ISO 1600 might also be a bit over what it can do gracefully. All this is as expected really. As Barney say - they are made for small prints and small pictures on the web.

What disturbs me though is the lousy lens. It looks like some kind of Lensbaby effect lens in the corners. It has extreme coma.

2 upvotes

the lens is not exceptional, but far from lousy. AT 9mm eq to 50mm, the lens is perfect. It's quite and odd choice for Panasonic, so so wide angle performance and so so longest reach but good to very good middle range. I own the camera, and can add another factor that these random images don't show, it's so fun to shoot with. I prefer using it to my Canon S110 which gives better image quality, but not by that much. That's the point.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Someone else said it was not good at the longest focal lengths and you say it is not good at the shortest. So maybe it is a 30-300 lens (10x) instead of 24-720 (30x).

0 upvotes

720mm, 10 fps, impressive shake reduction, lens control ring, manual focus w/peaking, wifi, gps, RAW. All in a pocket that fits in your pocket. Most of the owners will be posting on the web and printing 4x6 for albums to showcase their trips so the feature set and IQ is a perfect match to them. There are always trade-offs between size and IQ.

5 upvotes

When you put it like that...they should nickname the camera as pocket papparazi. I'm curious in what the shooting experience would be using a low-res EVF + P&S form factor with a 720mm equivalent focal length.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

The camera is more than good in the hands of knowledgeable people. look at my review waiting for Dpreview one. ;) http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3665485

1 upvote

No different than my Olympus SH-50 travel zoom, but at least the Panasonic offers RAW so you can tweak the images a bit more.

While image quality is definitely not a strong suit, these types of cameras can be fun to throw in a pocket and take when you want to be low-key and aren't sure what you'll encounter on your day.

0 upvotes

You have no need for RAW in a camera of this sensor IQ. There is nothing to tweak. The only thing you can avoid is the ugly noise reduction. But ... then you get noise instead.

3 upvotes

Not right. You can really squeeze a lot more details in RAW, you have better colors and WB, and your sharpening is more sophisticated. It's especially true with Panny cameras which jpegs are really bad. Canon and Fuji have the best jpegs in my experience, but the imaging resource have samples of ZS40 and Canon latest superzoom SX700, and at ISO1600, ZS40 RAWS beat handily Canon jpegs. look at this thread. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3660526

0 upvotes

God, those are pretty terrible. Imagine going on a vacation of a lifetime and coming back to show the shots to your family, friends. Jesus, who thought this camera was a GOOD idea to make in this day and age?

5 upvotes

Hold your nose as you say it, but they're fine for sharing on the web, and for small 6x4in prints, which is probably exactly the market that Panasonic is aiming at.

7 upvotes

Barney, I disagree. Do yourself a favor and look at gallery of ZS15 sample images. You won't find all the painful overexposures, no pronounced corner softness abundant in this ZS40 gallery.

Probably because Panasonic still respected their customers and wanted to provide a decent camera in 2012 (as opposed to 2014 ?).

In 2012 they considered 12MPix sensor and lens with 4.6-68.8 mm focals to provide a good balance of specs vs IQ. In 2014 they obviously don't care about balancing anything.

8 upvotes

People have retina screens on tablets nowadays. They can pinch to pixellevel. Who cares about prints.

1 upvote

It really depends on the person behind the camera. I have many fine shots out of ZS40, but they are carefully processed. Nowadays I prefer having ZS40 on me than my trusty Canon S110. It has a lot to do with the pleasure of shooting with ZS40, it's quick, stabilization is AWESOME, and the image quality is decent. look at some of my shots in this thread. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3668184

1 upvote

What exactly even makes this camera worth any review time?? A demonstration perhaps of the failure of Japanese companies to adapt? Cause right now those 18MP shots look like stitching together several smartphone images...just not very good.

3 upvotes

24-720mm lens in a pocketable camera, it's pretty appealing (on paper). Although yes, as you can tell, critical IQ is definitely lacking.

7 upvotes

Ok I understand more when I see the focal lengths...I think it'd be nice to have 35mm equivalent focal lengths displayed in gallery and be nice to see a size comparison of the camera itself somewhere. The US shield at 720mm equivalent is pretty good, and the slow shutter on the llama head statue or whatever I suppose is to show stabilization given stabilizing 720mm on a P&S form is pretty insane. Would be nice to see more bird pictures at the 720mm equivalent.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I would say the images are typical of small sensor cameras. At lower ISO's still better then most camera phones with the flexibility of a very long zoom that phone cameras do not yet provide. Not a camera for very low light. Add image stabilization and RAW (which as you showed can help some) plus a real viewfinder and it is still a viable camera for some, though that will change in the next couple of years for sure. Throw in the GPS capability and it is still a good camera for the average traveler as long as you realize that high ISO is bad. Definitely not a camera for pixel peepers though. I would disagree on the 4X5 print comment further above. As an owner of a Panasonic FZ150, looking at these I would say that at low ISO's 8X10 and 11x15 prints are doable. For web use and emailing to family or friends (who are not pixel peepers) it is quite nice. Not a camera for me, but I know many casual shooters who would love it. For them it is about memories, not IQ.

1 upvote

Pixel peeping a 18MP P&S is just a bad bad idea. I think if its resized to a 8MP file (like the print resize in studio compare), the results would be rather decent.

3 upvotes

30x optical zoom and EVF is still something clearly distinct from what a smartphone is capable of.

1 upvote

peevee it's too bad that some phones have better image quality these days.

only natural since the lenses tend to be faster since they are of a fixed focal length.

0 upvotes

It really depends on people taste, but I find this camera quite good in low light. i have taken some shots in dark neighborhoods ate night, and they turned nice with fine grain, but good tones. Look at some of them in this threads.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3672015
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3666866

0 upvotes

I don't poo poo all small sensor camera's...I have an XZ-1 that I like and also like to push to its limits in low light. And I find the CCD captures colors and grain in a fantastic manner compared to the sample shots I see here. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53741279
However I would rather it be wonderfully competent at the focal range it sets out to capture than to double as a birding camera (which IMO I am just not sure wildlife folks will really *need* such a lightweight camera).

0 upvotes

"peevee it's too bad that some phones have better image quality these days."

Not when zoomed 30x. Or even 3x.

0 upvotes

Why are people apologising for the IQ of this camera? Yes, it might be 'okay' for certain web sharing usage, but it's a big step backward from the TZ40 and a lot of shorter zoom cameras 1/3 the price or less. Panasonic really are taking the p - they finally introduce the consumer-targeted compact everyone seems to want with an (albeit crappy) EVF, but the IQ makes it unusable...

0 upvotes

Total comments: 83

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2014 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site


CES 2014: Panasonic Stand Report Jan 8, 2014	Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS35 and ZS40 travel zooms unveiled Jan 6, 2014	Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 real-world samples gallery May 30, 2014	Samsung NX Mini real-world samples gallery May 5, 2014

Black In stock Usually ships in 1-2 business days	$389.39 »
Silver In stock Usually ships in 1-2 business days	$447.99 »

150	Dp2 Quattro official sample is out
120	Anynone care to comment on this hypothesis. bobn2 etc?
115	Olympus PEN E-PL1 with kit 14-42 has less resolution than a point and shoot. How is it possible?
114	Panasonic FZ1000 preview published
94	Finally,my dream has come true!
77	Surely I can't be the only one who wants a compact FF with a fast 50mm?
77	Do you support your local camera shops?
60	DP2q vs NikonD800 sample
51	What did Sony do to make the A77II so much better?
44	First Prime for a6000 - SEL 50 F/1.8 OR SEL 35 F/1.8
42	Is my glass good enough?
39	Give the Sigma 60/2.8 a big shake, what will happen?
36	OMD EM5 Shutter shock
35	Should I even open my RX10 box?
34	FZ1000 - John Miles come back, all is forgiven . . .
34	Answer back Fuji.....
32	RX10 has competition..
31	New Forum for A3000
31	Professional camera?
31	But FZ-1000 is not a "SUPER" zoom anymore ....

May	JUN	Jul
	13
2013	2014	2015