Two things, I think.

One: Larger sensor area for the same number of pixels. This gives less noise.

Two: The ability to have dedicated lenses optimized for a given focal length. Zoom = compromise, the more zoom, the more compromise.

I am impressed with how little apparent compromise the FZ-200's Leica lens has considering the 24x optical zoom, particularly with that f2.8 aperture across the entire zoom range! Six months ago that would have been thought to be impossible.

You are correct about depth of field, but I offer the attached as demonstration that some depth of field control IS possible. I can shoot at f2.8 at any focal length, but even wide open as you say the depth of field is practically unlimited. Only in macro mode is there any semblance of control. The macro capabilities of the camera are excellent - I can put the front lens element nine millimeters from an object and still get autofocus.

I don't have to go scrolling through menus for anything that is commonly adjusted. There are 24 buttons, switches, dials, etc. on the camera body, and I can change almost any parameter without taking my eye out of the viewfinder. Example: in program shift mode, I can push to click the thumb-wheel on the back of the camera and toggle through exposure compensation (up to three stops +/- in 1/3 EV increments), aperture, or shutter speed, and adjust them by rotating the wheel, all the time seeing the effects of the changes in the 1.3 megapixel viewfinder.

Another cute feature is that in low light situations (I'm talking about shooting in the dark, where the exposure time might be ten or 15 seconds) the viewfinder automatically goes into light amplification mode and you see in the viewfinder what the 15-second exposure will look like. It's like having night vision goggles!

Panasonic offers a similar camera to the FZ200 for about $150 less, fewer features, a bit less capable, and interestingly that camera has a 16 megapixel sensor as compared to the 12 on the FZ200. That is the first sign of pixel sanity I have seen in the digital camera industry, breaking away from the concept that "more pixels equals more better". With tiny sensors, more pixels equals more noise. I wonder how the FZ200 team managed to slip that "smaller" sensor (same physical size, smaller number of pixels) past the marketing mavens? I'm glad they did!

The FZ200 has exceeded my expectations in nearly every area I have examined it in. I wish they could have retained the manual zoom of the FZ50, and I would have changed the UI regarding manual focus, but that's it. This camera is amazing, and the more I play with it the more impressed I become.

tanstaafl.