Panasonic Lumix FX100 review

A high-quality 6 megapixel camera captures enough detail for most people's needs, but that hasn't halted the race for higher resolution.

Last month we saw Casio's EX-Z1200, the first compact camera to hit the 12 megapixel mark, and hot on its heels are these two models from Kodak and Panasonic. 12 megapixels may be overkill for most people, but if you want to print A4 enlargements (or even larger) or crop down to a detail within a photo without sacrificing quality, it's an interesting option.

The Panasonic FX100, which was officially announced before its 12 megapixel rivals but didn't turn up any earlier, is similar to the Casio, with its slim metal body. Like the Z1200, it has optical image stabilisation, which counteracts camera shake to avoid blurring. Its zoom range is 3.6x, but that doesn't mean it brings distant subjects closer than a typical 3x zoom: instead, the benefit is at the wide-angle end. This is useful for capturing panoramic landscapes and large groups of people, and also for shooting objects with an exaggerated sense of perspective. If you want to photograph faraway subjects, an Extra Optical Zoom function takes a 3 megapixel photo using just the central portion of the sensor, giving an equivalent 7x zoom.

Unassuming exterior

Aside from its 12 megapixel sensor, the Kodak Z1275 has little in common with the Panasonic or Casio cameras. Its 2.5-inch screen has a meagre 115,000 pixels, and the plastic body and use of AA batteries (rather than a rechargeable unit) make it seem more of a budget camera. Fair enough, since that's effectively what it is. The relatively low price doesn't prohibit a generous 5x zoom lens and the inclusion of manual exposure and focus controls - features that the FX100 lacks.

The Kodak matches its massive photo resolution with an equally impressive 1280x720 pixel (high definition) video resolution. This packs three times as much detail as the 640x480-pixel video capture offered by the FX100 and most other digital still cameras. However, we weren't overly impressed with the results. Footage was detailed but suffered quite a lot of noise (digital grain), and the automatic exposure reacted abruptly to changes in lighting, causing brightness to jolt around in a distracting manner. Ultimately, the FX100's humbler video mode gave better results.

Capturing, processing and storing huge images takes time, so these cameras have their work cut out to keep up with you. The FX100 came up to Panasonic's usual high standards in this respect, capturing a photo in less than three seconds from switching on and averaging a shot every 1.8 seconds when using a fast SD card. The Kodak started well too, capturing three photos in around six seconds. However, there was a 10-second gap between subsequent shots while the camera processed and saved images to make room in its buffer memory for the next one.

Image conscious

More worryingly, fully pressing the shutter button caused the camera to take a picture without bothering to focus first. This meant it was vital that we half-pressed the shutter button and waited for the focus to be confirmed before pressing fully to take the shot - something that's usually only necessary if you want to fix focus on an off-centre subject before moving the camera into position. Some people may be happy to live with this quirk, but at best it slows things down, and at worst it results in blurry photos.

12 megapixel cameras unsurprisingly cost more than lower-resolution models, so they're only worth considering if their photos live up to their specifications. In favourable lighting conditions, both of these cameras produced sharp photos, capturing significantly more detail than 10 megapixel models. While the Kodak was marginally the sharper of the two, subtle halos around dark objects suggested that digital sharpening was the main reason, rather than better image capture. Smooth areas of colour were a little blotchy, and the fixed, relatively heavy JPEG compression made complex textures look a little scruffy when viewed up close. The Panasonic's images were very smooth and clean by comparison, and its colour accuracy was a significant step up, too.