Right and proper?
Each week I study the detailed analysis of the latest cameras so expertly provided by Andrew Sydenham. Each one serves as a perfect guide to a potential purchaser. As the owner of a TZ60, I naturally studied the report on the latest offering from Panasonic, the TZ200 (AP 26 May). My camera is four years old and does most of the things that the latest version offers, so I’m not tempted to open the purse strings. One comment in the summary did however worry me, this being: ‘ The TZ200 won’t, for most users, replace a “proper” camera.’ I was prompted to examine the definition of ‘proper’ and noted that among others it is: ‘of the required or correct type or form; suitable or appropriate’.
With the results shown from the TZ200, I would call it a ‘proper’ camera, as indeed I would my TZ60, since for both cameras in the iA mode there is a significant advantage over one of Andrew’s proper cameras – they are light and pocketable, hence always with you, an advantage often noted within AP. Having passed three score and ten by a large margin, I abandoned my Nikon F-801 with its attendant bag of zooms, when I found that after a day’s outing, the shoulders were complaining; not a problem with my suitable or appropriate TZ, which will under most normal conditions, produce perfect A3 prints. I would therefore call the TZ series ‘proper’ cameras and could I suggest that AP might have used the term ‘more sophisticated’ instead of ‘proper’. Mike Rignall You’re right, the TZ200 is a very capable camera in its own right. But this is why I used the word ‘proper’ in inverted commas: it’s shorthand for the kind of sophisticated interchangeable-lens model that most AP readers primarily use – Andy Westlake, technical editor