FZ1000 compared to Micro Four-thirds

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
richj20
Senior MemberPosts: 2,225
Like?
FZ1000 compared to Micro Four-thirds
3 months ago

With the FZ200, I've found that one weakness is certain types of landscapes, where foliage at a distance is not resolved too well. In these situations, I continued to use my m4/3 system.

The FZ1000 gives much better results in these types of scenes, and it compares favorably with the m4/3.

In comparing, I am interested in how they look when printed to 8x10, so I examine the images at about 50-55%.

Here are a few examples. I used my favorite m4/3 lenses, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, and Panasonic-Leica 45mm f/2.8. These were photographed on a recent trip to the Southern Sierra Nevada and Kern River Valley, California.

The FZ1000 focal length was adjusted to match the m4/3 20mm (=40mm) and 45mm (=90mm) lenses.

1. Ranch country scene, Kern County

FZ1000

G3 + 20mm

2. Kern River, Tulare County

FZ1000

G3 + 45mm

3. South Creek, Tulare County

FZ1000

G3 + 20mm

4. Johnsondale Lake, Tulare County

FZ1000

G3 + 20mm

I've included two flower photographs to compare closeup and macro.

5. Buffalo Burr, Solanum rostratum

FZ1000

G3 + 45mm

6. Wire lettuce, Stephanomeria

FZ1000 with Nikon 6T

G3 + 45mm

- Richard

-- hide signature --

"Careful photographers run their own tests." - Fred Picker

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow