Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 and ZS1
The post-holiday mark downs continue:
I spotted my camera — Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 10.1 MP Digital Camera with 12x Wide Angle MEGA Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 3 inch LCD (Black) — $50 cheaper than I paid 3 months ago. (I replaced the Casio Exilim; that 3X optical zoom wasn’t doing it for me).
The Lumix is on sale at Amazon for $241.45.
Look at that giant honkin’ 12X optical zoom — that was the key for me. Its got a big ass Leica lens, nice 3″ LCD screen, and has all the bells and whistles you could want, plus HD video recording.
Its about as nice a point and shoot as I’ve ever seen.
If you want to go even cheaper, drop the video and get the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1. It has all of the same features, but without the video — $199.
~~~
I have long said that consumer electronics comes down in price not as a function of deflation (See Hackonomics, section 3), but due to the economies of scale as more consumers adapt the technology. This seems to be a classic example — 3 years ago, this was a $650 piece of hardware.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
hey barry, how was it driving the 2 seater the other day?
now thats a 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California Spyder you have?
~~~
BR: Ha! I wish . . .
December 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
thanks for the heads up BR-
I was actually eyeballing this camera to replace the 5 or 6 yr old 4 meg Olympus I have.
Just an observation- but electronics has to be a brutal business if only looking at it from a competition angle-
I know that Lumix = Panasonic- a huge company but also know that Sony another huge company has been getting its ass handed to it w/ major market misses-
people are fickle and easy to drift off to the next thing- can’t rely on past triumphs
December 28th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
BR,
this: “..consumer electronics comes down in price…but due to the economies of scale as more consumers adapt the technology.”
isn’t, exactly, True.
greater uptake, of the Technology, by those within the “Walled Garden”, certainly, drives the Demand Curve to the Right. But, in this case, the ones putting ‘eyeballs’ on top of the “Wall”, and throughout the “Garden”, are driving Demand for the ‘engines’ that underlie these ‘modern marvels’..
it’s a “both/and”, type of deal..
see, as, but, one of the Engines, underlying this phenomena..
“…software that features a Face Recognition function that recognizes the faces in photos stored on the computer, allowing the user to easily sort files by the people photographed…”
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=327234&modelNo=Content01272009064642789&surfModel=Content01272009064642789
and, an example of its ‘other home’/Demand puller..
http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/learn/Cameras-Camcorders/Network-Cameras/
and, really, what this dude is selling, here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572230780152344.html
is a clarion call to build, given our current, voyeuristic State, little more than ‘Panopticon’..
(to say nothing of the Idiocy involved in ‘thinking’ the Cyberspace, itself, is not dependent upon the ‘Infrastructure’ he, so readily, derides..)
If We want any semblance of ‘Civil Liberties’, going fwd:, we should forget all about the ACLU, and understand, for a change, what EFF & EPIC are talking about..
December 28th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
check out the leica c-lux 3. amazing lens. 1080P video. compact.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
We got our daughter one of the DMC-ZS3 for the holidays – she just arrived home from college at 3am this morning and we’re giving it to her tonight. We originally considered one of the Canons, but the specs on the Lumix were too good and the Amazon price was great.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Deflation?!? You mean to tell me that there are clods out there that think that consumer electronics get cheaper because of something the fed or the government did?
Holy cow … it’s really no wonder to me that we are so economically screwed even as human ingenuity rolls on to make all our lives better, easier, funner …
The stuff gets cheaper because we find better and cheaper ways to make the stuff. And then there is the economy of scale as well. For instance – to make one and only one B2 bomber cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But after all the engineering was done and the assembly line up each new copy cost about 200 million. So the price per plane dropped with each one built. That’s the economy of scale you speak of.
But consumer electronics keep dropping as well because we get better at making the stuff – have you ever watched the automated machines populate an electronics board with components? Compare that to people with gloves shoving parts in holes all day long. The cost to manufacture has gone down dramatically over the years. This is the case all up and down the production process and there are even many, many improvements in the tools used to engineer the first unit.
So what do a bunch of economic clods want to do with all this progress? Print money like hell to keep out in front of any improvements made and keep the price of the stuff constant. And what do they do with the money that they print? They buy votes and build monuments to their stupidity and claim all the while that *they* are making our lives better. What a joke.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Deflation, a constant downward spiral in demand and price, is a pre-cursor to depression.
As prices drop, demand should increase, for demand increases marginally whenever opportunity cost drops. Price variability is one of the basic components of markets, and its been a really sturdy tool in helping us limp, then walk through 2009.
When prices and demand continue dropping in tandem, generally, throughout the economy, that is deflation.
I think 2009 has really been more about moving existing inventory, and the statistic I was into was number of units sold, apart from profit or loss. I think we dodged a bullet for sure.
For 2010, I anticipate healthy growth in demand for new, green technology, green consumer goods, and improvements in efficiency and quality of life through new, greener living. I eschew the notion that green is more expensive, or costs jobs. Green demand is cheaper, and will create jobs. The lynchpin to robust recovery will be job creation in the private sector. I think the politics are right to get a fast start on a new decade, and fresh, sturdy, profitable growth.
BR was my hero in late 2008, and now its a joy to learn about the nice technology available at really irresistable prices, that BR is helping move. Awesome.
December 29th, 2009 at 12:45 am
@stephen: Nice flame.
Agree
December 29th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Buy gold! Buy gold from 888-Buy-Gold. Don’t let declining prices fool you, prices are going up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/stewart-catches-glenn-bec_n_388362.html
Pray on it…
December 29th, 2009 at 2:34 am
It’s a nice toy but if you’re into still photography get a DSLR. This puppy looks OK-ish for quick snapshots (though I would go Nikon or Canon) but there are physical limits as to what you can cram into this size factor (both sensor and optics). With cameras the numbers (Mpixels/zoom etc.) are 90% marketing hype. What matters is the optical quality. That’s why just a good lens can be $2000 by itself.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:44 am
I’ve go the same camera Barry. The video is really excellent for such as small camera. It’s nice being able to record the kids playing and be able to take great pictures as well. My only reservation is that even with 10 MP the relatively small lens means picture resolution is not as good as it could be. But hey it is a compact! I think I paid about $NZ 600 when our dollar was at about $US 80 cents so it must have been about March 2008. Good buying at that time!
December 29th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Dear BR, Mon, Dec 28, 2009
Please forgive my popping any mental bubbles, but I have a DMC-TZ5 – essentially an older upper-end versi0n of the same camera – and the sensor is noisy and hardly useful outside what you’d use a really cheap camera for.
You want it cheap ? I’ll sell it to you !
Yeah, nice lens. Yeah, sorta OK video.
But who cares – with a sensor rated optimistically at ASA50 combined with really aggressive noise (that means “detail”) suppressing electronics, limited flat dynamic range, and mushy cooked-to-pieces image detail.
Sorry guys, but the camera price is low because it is CHEAP TO BUILD ! It is FAR from a great camera ! The specs are chosen to “look good” on paper and sell to spec-hounds, not to take great pictures ! The ideal pixel size, due to the laws of physics is about 6×6 up to 9×9microns. With such pixels, Nikon and Canon get ASA6400 speed ratings. It is not the speed but the dynamic range which matters.
To put just 6m (2000×3000) 6×6 pixels on a sensor requires 12mm x 18mm – not Panasonic’s 4×6mm (1/8″ x 1/6″) which is 10% as large, and at least 100x more noisy, with 6 f-stops LESS exposure range and crude tones and shadings to accompany the poor detail !
For a pretty good introduction to these concepts, please visit “The Luminous Landscape”. The writer understands photography sensor engineering the way you understand econometrics, but please don’t ask him to do your macro-econ for your blog ! (And, with all due respect, don’t expect him to ask you for photo-tips at this point, either)
All the Panasonic cameras are so-so – Just borrow a friend’s Nikon D700 for a weekend to see what a digital camera CAN do. For pocket-size ones that work the way you want these days, try a Canon – at $400-500. Its worth it !
The Lumix is what Wall-Street would design when what you want is a camera !
Best on the New Year,
DD
December 29th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Re:diogenes dog
I love it when Barry crowdsources. He has such a diverse audience that he will almost always get some top end, educational answers in the mix
Hey Barry, if you ever need some expert advice on sleeping or flushing the toilet, stuff like that. I’M THERE!
December 29th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Very nice looking camera! Almost looks nice enough to make me put down my Nikon DSLR
December 29th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
HTCSMI,
good point, and right, they are..
see: The more pixels, the worse the images
It has been known for a couple of years now that increasing the number of pixels in digital cameras does not lead to better images. Therefore Image Engineering, an independent test lab, has set up a website which demonstrates and describes the problems caused by high pixel counts. The test lab hopes for wide support in the media in informing customers and utilizing a change in customer behavior in order to convince manufacturers to produce better cameras instead of those with a higher pixel count.
If you want to support this initiative please write a comment and we will add a link to your website.
http://6mpixel.org/en/
pixel density (too high) begets that “overcooked/mushy”-image qual.
in general http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=small+sensors+high+pixel+count+poor+image+quality
December 29th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Dud, you’re seriously fooling yourself if you think you’re getting a real Leica lens for $200. You can’t even get a real Leica lens CAP for that. Sure, Leica optical engineers helped design the lens–design it to be mass-produced as cheaply as possible, which is NOT what got Leica its reputation. Consumer electronics may have gotten cheaper with time and economies of scale, but good glass has not. Personally, I’m waiting until after I’ve used up the last of my Kodachrome.
December 29th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
A nice feature to have is RAW image output–in addition to jpeg.
You can clean up and save a mediocre pic from a RAW image file (using some great free image editing s/w).
I”ve got a 2006 6MP ELPH Canon that was able to download free 3rd party firmware that now give me both jpeg and raw image files. Unfortunately it only for Canon cameras, check it out.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
December 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@diogenes dog -
The DMC-ZS3 is a substantially different from the DMC-TZ5, with new sensor and dual processor. The TZ5 received mid-range reviews, while the ZS3 received a lot more respect. Given that the ZS3 is already cheap, you probably won’t get much for your TZ5, but that’s technology for you.
Speaking of deals, besides the ZS3 for my daughter, I bought a Canon Rebel XS (1000D) SLR for my wife for $414. Looks like that was a special, because the price is back up to $449 on Amazon. It is a heck of a camera – probably half the weight of the original Rebel 300D, and the photos are gorgeous.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
OT:
hgordon,
rad link, is surveyor your co. ?
December 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Mark -
Yes.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
OT:
hgordon,
cool, I was fixin to ask if you read ya any VSD, but, seeing this:
http://www.vision-systems.com/display_article/352282/19/none/none/Feat/Picking-a-Camera-with-Punch
that’s, probably, moot.
though, w/this http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/03/17/yarb-robot-blimp-offers-totally-obvious-aerial-surveillance/ do you do any ‘Rover’ to ‘Blimp’ comm?
or, more specifically, are y’all totally focused on Vision Systems for mobile apps, or do you use it for things like QC on assembly lines, as well?
December 29th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
OT:
Mark –
The company’s customers are mainly universities and research labs, and there are some projects combining blimps and rovers such as this joint project of Carnegie Mellon University and Lockheed Martin –
http://www.surveyor.com/cgi-bin/robot_journal.cgi/2009/12/03#242
QC inspection applications are specific to each task, using VGA cameras with gigabit Ethernet interfaces, etc, so that is outside of our interests. We mainly focus on relatively simple programmable vision-enabled devices that are ideal for different types of sensors, autonomous behavior, and some inter-robot communication. It is interesting work.
Thanks for asking, and apologies to anyone who didn’t want to know …
Howard
December 29th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
IIRC, it was only about 12-13 years ago that a 1TB hard drive would cost you nearly $1,000,000. Now, you can pick one up for just under $100.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Only one flaw in the logic. have you looked at the prices of digital SLRs? The big 2 keep coming out with “new improved” models. Each one is fancier and a few hundred dollars richer. Three years ago, the typical DSLR was running $5 to $6 hundred. Now, it is very common to see them for $1,200 to $1,500. Must be larger lens envy!!
December 29th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Barry,
Glad to know you took my suggestion
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/ultrazoom-cameras/