On 11/25/2014 11:20 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
Anyone out there sporting a Lumix DMC-FZ1000? It looks like a pretty nifty all-in-one.
I read the DP Review, but as Moose has shown us numerous times, those must be read
with a very critical eye, and my eyes ain’t so critical when it comes to the
all-in-one.
When we go back to the UK this spring, I do not—DO NOT—intend on carrying a
full kit.
Obviously, I can only speak to my own reactions/opinions. This camera seems neither fish nor fowl to me, which might
make it perfect for you.
A few things that jumped out for me in a rather cursory look at the review:
"The Lumix DMC-FZ1000 is a chunky superzoom camera that is roughly the same size as a DSLR with a kit lens attached."
"The body size is essentially a match for a mid-level DSLR" "The FZ1000 is indeed a large camera, but is easy to hold
and operate."
It's much larger and heavier than any camera lens combination I carry for casual use. Although a wildly different shape,
it's about as large, and insignificantly heavier than, the largest I ever carry, E-M5 or GX7 with 75-300 lens.
There is no way I can see to carry it but around my neck or in a rather large bag. I guess I can't see enough advantage
in the all-in-one aspect to out weigh size, weight and flexibility in carrying.
As one of many examples, a GM5 with 12-32 kit lens fits in a moderate size jacket pocket or belt bag. The 45-150 lens,
likewise, so I can wander around without anything around my neck or on my shoulder, yet have a 24-300 mm focal range.
"... it's a bit soft at wide-angle (25mm equiv.)" "... its maximum aperture rapidly drops from F2.8 towards F4.0 as you
zoom in"
So ... not great at WA, and not a darn thing I can do about it if it turns out to be a problem but buy a different
camera. Unfortunately, tests don't usually show FL vs. fastest aperture. That DPR felt it worth mentioning, may mean
it's worse with this lens than most. So f2.8 becomes f4 - as soon as it starts to get sharper.
"While image quality is close to that of interchangeable lens cameras at their base ISOs, the FZ1000 falls behind
relatively quickly due to its smaller sensor."
It seems to me that any given time, there has been a sweet spot for sensor size, for all but the most demanding, huge
display uses. I feel that I've pretty much followed that spot, from FF 5D, through APS-C 60D to µ4/3, starting with the
E-M5. Although it was possible to make stunningly high IQ prints from the earlier Pen sensors at low ISOs (I have a
15x20" Ctein print that would knock your socks off.), the later gen of sensor systems upped the ante considerably,
especially at higher ISOs.
1" may be the next size where that will happen, but it hasn't happened yet. Tedious, but very useful, is to download Raw
files from the test sites and process them oneself. If FZ1000 image files make you happy, fine. If not, you will just be
frustrated when you get home. Clunky as they are, the standardized test subjects are really useful for comparing various
aspects of EQ on different cameras.
The JPEG images on screen in the tests don't show what may be achieved in post with the right tools and skills. Raw
files from some cameras simply differ in how well they react to NR, deconvolution, etc., as well as different Raw
converters.
FZ1000 - 1" = 13.2 x 8.8 mm
µ4/3 - 4/3" = 17.3 x 13
APS-C = 23.6 x 15.6
You may not have used camerasize.com, particularly their wonderful new ability to compare several cameras at once - with
one's choice of lenses! <http://j.mp/1vdfobB>
Hover your mouse over a camera to see size/weight details. It doesn't show sensor size nor eq. focal lengths. The
compact Oly and Panny lenses are 14-42 = 28-84, the tiny Panny 12-32 = 24-64 and the Fuji 'compact', but much larger &
heavier, 16-50 = 24-75. I seem to recall that you don't think you would be happy without a viewfinder, so I've only
included a couple of cameras without that I like. Note that the tiny GM5 has a VF, and a real control wheel.
Anyway, it's a great tool for camera/lens comparisons. One thing I've done that's worked pretty well most of the time is
to imagine (close your eyes) using the camera and lens(es) to take the kind of shots I like in places I expect to be.
This little exercise has saved me from some real potential mistakes.
I included the Fuji based on Philippe and Chris's recommendations. I know next to nothing about the Fujis. If I were in
the market, I'm sure I'd be looking closely at them, but I'm happy with what I'm using and have somehow built up quite a
lens investment there.
I guess I just can't imagine having a fixed lens camera as my main one. This review doesn't test close-up capabilities,
for example. I'll bet closest focus is at WA and at the longer focal lengths, it's not very good. For me, that would
mean carrying a close-up lens, a far less ideal, more expensive and heavier option* than an extension tube. In my case,
I also have the light 60/2.8, 2:1 Macro, which is fabulous.
Then, what about the fun stuff? I recently just couldn't resist the siren call of the Oly 9/8.0 semi-fisheye. I couldn't
see carrying around a relatively expensive, heavy fisheye like Nathan recently bought for the relatively few appropriate
subjects I run into. This thing is light, tiny, cheap - and fun.
G.A.S. Moose
* Single elements ones aren't good. Achromats are heavy and expensive. Now, I already have a 62 mm Nikon 5T, but I'll
bet you don't. :-)
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|