Actually I'm a web designer and this type of camera does many things for my specific needs:
Right, but can other cameras and even do so better? For example what needs does the FZ50 fill that the FZ30 does not do so even better?
1. On a personal basis; if the prints are good then I'm a happy person.
To some degree that can be said for me, the end result is what it looks like when Acdsee resizes the photo to fit to my monitor and what what 8.5 x11 prints looks like. Of course the ability to print larger if the shot is exceptional is always nice.
2. I will be downsizing the photos for web work anyway, and have found with the examples that this works VERY well and produces great results (even the forest/flower picture mentioned earlier).
But does it do a better job than even cheaper or older cameras, if so then why it?
The only caveat is the lack of finite detail in the hair of the market vendor. This makes it seem more muddied than it should. But considering that I would need to spend the same amount of money for the BODY only version of a DSLR and then pay at least the same amount again for a comparable lense, I see a real value here.
Indeed getting 420 focal length for a dslr is going to be expensive.
To pay twice as much to get 25% better rendering makes no sense.
Exactly.
However, the real competition I see is the $250.00 more expensive (list) camera from Sony (Sony DSC-R1). Here you have a better lense/photo combination because of the larger sensor, but a less usable zoom range (5X vs. 12X). It depends on what level of quality you need vs. the zoom magnification.
Not competition in my book as I certaintly want the 420mm and will have to get an adapter on after that to have the ability to get more range. From my slr film days I learned the importance of tele.