I'll be brief. Megapixels should not be your sole consideration. I have made 8x10 prints of pictures taken (macro and regular settings) with this camera and they are gorgeous and very detailed (I posted the full zoom photo of the truck with the dent and the macro pic of the devil ducks). For family and vacation pix this is exactly what I need. I think the person who wrote that 4x6 prints weren't good didn't have the camera set to the highest resolution (it has 3, with the lowest resolution intended for web viewing only).

The low light problem may lie with me as I've re-read the manual and now taken a couple good photos in no light with the flash. I set the camera to night rather than normal and the flash and image stabilization did the rest.

The video quality is alright for the occasional e-mail.

As I love the compact size I'm keeping this camera. I was thinking of moving to a used FZ3 as that model is the same size and has the focus-assist for low light, but may hold off for now.

Ideally I'd like a camera this size that could also take decent video with sound occasionally that I could enjoy watching on a TV. This is a little too muddy. BTW, you can watch photos on your TV, but oddly, you can't transfer pix from your computer onto the camera's flash card and then use the camera to view them on TV. That would be a nice feature also.

I also wish there was an ISO setting button rather than having to go into the menus, but oh well.

Oh, get a 128MB or better flash card. I only take pix at the highest resolution and then convert to lower for e-mail on my computer.

This is the worst digital camera I have ever owned! The night pictures are terrible especially of dark clothing. The Macro Zoom is very poor. PANASONIC should stick to VCR's and TV's! Very Poor Quality! I called Panasonic and they couldn't tell me the problem. Neither tech could answer my questions and on the rude side also. I like Panasonic products but the camera doesn't deserve one star. If you want a good quality digital camera, don't buy Panasonic!! Most of the pictures are not clear. The colors aren't true. I wish I had listened to a bad review I had read of this camera previously!
Sheila

My partner and I decided we like snapping photos so much, that we wanted one each. We already owned a 3.2 Megapixel Sony Cybershot (with a 3x zoom), and wanted something that could zoom in - without sacrificing the quality.

We didn't see the need in buying a hugely expensive camera - as we would prefer to buy a new camera every few years to keep up with the new releases in the market.

When I first saw the Panasonic Lumix 2 megapixel camera in the photo shop, the shop attendant tried to talk me out of it. I was taken in with the massive 12x optical zoom! This was not even comparable to other cameras in this price range. Granted, the image quality was only 2 megapixel's, but that did not worry me in the slightest.

I use my photos for viewing on my laptop, and sharing with others through email. I find that photos larger than 2 megapixel take a long time to send through, and some email accounts such as hotmail and yahoo cannot accept the file size as it is too large.

A nice man in a photo processing shop told me that 2 megapixels is the same quality that a standard film camera produces in photos. Therefore, if I did want to print onto gloss paper, I would not be sacrificing the quality of the photos in any way.

My partner and I have just moved to Alaska - and we are loving the zoom on our Panasonic Lumix. It's fantastic! No more missed photo opportunities because the old Sonly Cypershot couldn't get in close enough. The camera barely shakes even right in on the 12th level of zoom power.

The dial at the top is easy to use, and makes shifting between types of shots easy. Move the dial from night preferred, to fast moving, to portrait, to movie, you name it. There are loads of options.

One of the coolest things I have found with this camera is the multiple click option. Are you trying hard to capture something that is moving? Set the multiple shot button, and just hold the button down on the moving target - it takes 6 pictures in succession really quickly - so you are guarranteed to snap that shot you want.

People who see my camera, think it's a really expensive one. I have had people ask me if it is a digital SLR! The lens is nice and big, and the viewing screen is impressive.

This camera looks sexy, it performs well - and for the price, it's a steal.

Dumbfounded by the deluge of digicams? Spending more time obsessing on which digicam to buy, more than you did buying your house? Like the fact the users seem to fall in love with this little wonder but are put off by the fact it's only a 2 megapixel camera? Don't worry about the megapixels. The Lumix FZ1/FZ2 is rightfully developing quite a cult following with consumers, photography enthusiasts, and even professional photographers (read "FZ-1: A Pro-Level Digital Point & Shoot" by Frank Van Ripper from the Washington Post available on-line at CameraWorks.com) If you can live without more megapixels, this compact camera has so much to offer. 2MP is more than you need for PC viewing, e-mail, and the web. It can and does provide sufficient resolution to make excellent photo-quality prints up to 5X7, and supposedly makes nice enlargements up to 8X10.

This is a compact, responsive, point and shoot camera with a robust feature set - including a capable burst mode (great for sports action shots and not found on cameras in this class), and true TTL framing via an EVF. There's enough to this camera to satiate the enthusiast - night portrait, portrait, panning, "normal" mode etc., and also has a fully automated mode if you want to let the camera do all the work, and just "focus" (pardon the pun) on composition. But what sets this digicam apart is the big zoom fixed Leica lens. It really is a word-class piece of glass with remarkable specs, especially considering its size. Combine this remarkable lens with an effective image stabilization system, and you have a "different animal" all together. This is a unique versitile and fun digicam that has so much more than others in its price range. Its limitations (weak pop-up flash, EVF cuts out in low light, noise above ISO 200, etc) are really more attributable to its class ($300 point and shoot) than the camera. However, it is capable of producing remarkable images, and once you start shooting with its high quality lens with an IS system, you'll never want a camera doesn't have them. Plus, it is an excellent value. If you don't do a lot of enlargements or cropping in a photo editor, I would recommend the FZ1 in a heartbeat over any other camera, regardless of the number of megapixels, in its price range, and most cameras that cost two or three times as much.

Now a word about megapixels. A megapixel is 1 million pixels (they're the little squares that make up the image...). So, this camera produces images that are 1600 pixels wide by 1200 pixels high. 1600X1200 = approx 2 million, hence 2 megapixels. Since going digital, I find that I view 90%-95% on my PC/laptop monitor. It's convenient, and priting them all would cost a small fortune, since now that I can snap away with wreckless abandon since film (for me) is a thing of the past. (I still use a lab to print. I would rather "borrow" the lab's $200,000 printer than own a $300 dollar consumer photo printer, plus it costs much less per print when you factor in the cost of the printer ink...) Okay, so my laptop's highest 32 bit resolution setting is 1024X768, the resolution of the FZ1 (1600X1200) exceeds that. Point is that since I view most of my pictures on a PC now, I gain NOTHING from a higher resolution camera with more megapixels in most circumstances. The 5% to 10% of pictures I print, I usually print at standard 6X4. Anything over 200 pixels per inch (ppi) is considered "photo quality" for printing, 150 ppi is considered "acceptable". As you get beyond 250 ppi on a print, the differences in resolution from a normal viewing distance are virtually invisible to the naked eye. IMO, I would fail a blind test, probably, if asked to guess the resolution of a picture between the 200 and 250 ppi range. 1600 (pixels)/6(inches) = 267 ppi, exceeding 250 ppi in length on a 6X4 (Note: technically, this formula isn't entirely accurate but is close enough for government work, and serves better as a quick illustration...). A 5X7 is 228 ppi, and an 8X10 is 160 ppi. Hence, this camera produces "photo-quality" images up to 5X7 and "acceptable" resolution up to 8X10. Most photo editors worth their disk space, like Photoshop, can resample images using bicubic interpolation to add pixels and boost resolution for the (very) occasional larger print. A very good product for this is Qimage, a free trial is available, and it's quite inexpensive to purchase. A hot shoe would have been nice but my understanding is that a "digital slave flash", which are quite reasonably priced, like the Vivitar AF200, work very well when you need a big flash.

Now consider, not a "scientific survey" but 3 or 4 folks I know own 3 to 5 megapixel cameras. (The 5 megapixel guy has a 10X optical zoom camera, made by one of the usual suspects, that cost 2X as much as the FZ1, but he doesn't even attempt zooming out beyond 5X without blurring the image, since his camera doesn't have IS). None of them kept their cameras on the highest setting thereby "using" all the megapixels. Why? Because the larger image files cut the amount of pictures they can store on their flash cards in half, their camera annoyingly "locks up" for a couple seconds while it writes a larger image file (often very frustrating), and they really can't notice a difference in quality on their prints, and they view most of their pictures on their PC. Let's say you have a 6 megapixel camera that had a cheap lens that introduced all sorts of distortion and a processing engine that rendered inaccurate colors. What would you get? A crappy picture with distortion and inaccurate colors rendered in all their ugly glory in high resolution. The FZ1 has the "best" lens on the market, and an excellent, innovative processing engine that provides "enough" but not "extraneous" megapixels to provide photoquality resolution for 99% of "real world" viewing formats. I believe that camera companies are exploiting the conspicuous consumption factor of camera consumers who wear their camera around their neck like jewelery. (The "name" + many megapixels = "the guy" equivalent of a pearl necklace to wear on a night out). It is therefore a great way for the camera co's to (finally) introduce planned obsolence into their offerings, dispensing with the days when folks held on to their cameras for decades until they finally died. I'm glad at least one manufacturer withdrew from the "great megapixel wars" and offered an excellent product based around real user needs and the true advantages of the full range of available technology - like IS and its processing engine, and did so at a very reasonable cost, instead of being just another combatant exploiting one aspect - "the megapixel", and the conspicuous consumption factor.

Get the picture?

I bought this camera in December of 2003, It's my first digital camera, and I know nothing about digital cameras or photography. There are some people where I work that are really into cameras and photography. A few of the people cringed when I told them I bought a Panasonic. When I showed it to them and told them about the features such as the 12x optical zoom and the Leica lens, those people quickly changed their minds about my camera. I read all the reviews here and someone mentioned that it doesn't take good 4x6 prints....to that person, are you nuts? They looked great to me, I used this camera to document the assembly of an engine for my friend's hotrod, I have taken about 40 pictures so far. I had them printed on ofoto.com as 4 x 6's and had one picture printed in 8 x 10 and they looked amazing! My friend was also impressed. One tip, purchase a bigger memory card than the 8mb that comes with it, it'll allow you to take about 8 pictures at full blown size and quality. I purchased the 128mb card and an extra battery. The bottom line is, buy this camera and 90% of the people you run into will be green with envy over your camera! Occasionally you'll run into someone who uses a high end camera who might snicker at this camera, but keep in mind folks, it's not a professional camera, it's a great amateur camera! In this price range, nothing can touch it. This camera is also offered in a 4MP model, When I saw that, I instantly wanted to upgrade because of the pixels. After reading these reviews today, I'm saving my money! Again, great camera.

I have had this camera for two years now. I have taken many, many great photos with this camera, it's unbelievable. It seems to do well in almost all conditions.

I uploaded a photo I took of my daughter just last week. The original picture was in color and was fantastic all by itself. I used virtual photographer to improve on it just a little bit by changing it to black and white and putting a soft focus on it.

The very first picture I took with this camera had me hooked. It's a closeup of my son. I was trying to decide if I should keep the camera or return it for another. Well, that shot alone made me decide to keep it and I am so glad I did.

I've had my camera for over a year after picking one up on eBay, and it is the best digital camera I've ever used (and I've used a lot).

First of all, I totally agree with other reviewers here about how this camera quells the notion that more megapixels is better. I wouldn't know what to do with them if I had them. This camera consistently produces "film quality" prints. Color saturation and tone are excellent, as well as is sharpness.

Having an image stabilized Leica lens with a 12x zoom is what really sets this camera apart from the competition. You're never too far away from your subject with this excellent lens.

The lens is only half the story because coupled to it is an equally, fantastic CCD imaging system. The time to turn the camera on, shoot a photo, and store it to memory is the quickest I've experienced since my first digital camera: a little Fuji Finepix A101 (which is a simple, point-and-click 2 megapixel camera).

Speaking of my Finepix A101, I've taken photos with it and printed off 8 x 10's that many people would swear was taken with an expensive SLR film camera. To put it bluntly, the quality of the photographer also has a lot to do with what you get from a digital camera. I am an amateur photographer -- whatever that means.

Despite the many features of the FZ1, I would recommend it for a beginner, but only if the beginner has already had some experience with film cameras and at least knows how to compose a picture with proper lighting and framing. A few beginners may be intimidated by it, but they shouldn't be: just put it on the "heart" setting and fire away to your "heart's" content.

The biggest weakness of ALL digital cameras is flash photography. There is no way the dinky, little flashes that come with them can do a decent job. They all tend to wash out images. Unfortunately, this camera does not have a hot shoe to allow the addition of an external flash. Photos taken with its flash will only be acceptable if there is sufficient ambient light to begin with. My advice is to avoid flash wherever possible: instead, take advantage of its fast lens, set the ISO to 400, and use available lighting.

Low lighting is problematic for the FZ1 as there is no infrared assist. What I do is to either point-and-shoot, and hope for the best, or lock my focus on something bright that is the same distance away as my subject.

Except for those situations where lighting is poor, this camera will take perfectly balanced shots under most lighting conditions. If you have to use flash, well, then, use it.

If you can find a better camera than the FZ1 for the same money, by all means, buy it, but I seriously doubt you will. The FZ1 is as good as it gets!

After several (mostly outdoor) shots with this camera, I was pleased with the overall performance but mystified as to why the colors were off. The reason seems to be that the so-called "auto" white balance doesn't really compensate for the available lighting. My guess is that it is simply a fixed setting based on all possible lighting available on Planet Earth, ergo, only passable for any particular situation. Images taken in sunlight are improved immensely by using that setting, and indoor/mixed light source images should first be set using the manual white balance feature, if possible.

I want to just let you know that I am definetely not a pro, but an average person, so that is how I'm writing my review. I got this camera 2 years ago because I wanted a superzoom. Well, with the picture stabilization and the 12X zoom, I got what I wanted, but not much more. If you want to take nature photos, this camera is terrific. If you want to move on to scenery that moves, your going to have to find something else, b/c this camera does not have the shutter speed for it. Also, low light or artificial light does not come out very well either. With flash will look so-so as long as your image is within range, but the background is black. I do love this camera for being easy to use, but I've personally grown out of it. The 2 MP is also outdated.