Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OT) Lumix DMC-FZ1000

Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) Lumix DMC-FZ1000
From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:11:58 -0500
I think I was falling under the spell of some wishful thinking as far as an 
all-in-one. As I told Chris and Philippe, I’m not sure what I want a new kit 
for, so maybe I’ll likely defer the decision until I know more. Thanks so much 
for the information, put into proper perspective.

--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal

On Nov 25, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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/
> 

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz