dopravopat: HDR is also stacking - stacking of exposure.
Classic HDR uses image stacking to retrieve tone maps, which is analogous to stacking multiple planes of focus to increase DOF or multiple frames to average out noise. It's true you can do HDR from a single photo, but you can also sharpen or remove noise from single images as well without stacking.
And there are obviously more than just the two types of stacking you've noted above. Another is to depict movement, as we see in the stacked flag and the stacked watch hands in this challenge or in star trails, etc. And I'm sure there are other uses for image stacking as well.
Interesting shot - looks great enlarged! And you phosphorescence appears to last well over an hour.
Interesting stack with unique result.
I can't tell which is which. Did you destitute and the blue out the sky?
Todd3608: How many consumers actually want 4K quality. I am the geek in our family and have zero desire for 4K. 1080P is good enough for me.
@dougbm_2: No poll necessary - all I had to do was read the many FZ1000 threads in the Panasonic Compact Cameras forum.
It's likely that downsampled 4k video will result in better 480p that shooting directly in 480. 1080p and 4K are just formats, much like MP4 and AVCHD are. Most cameras that shoot 1080p can't resolve 1080 lines - just like these 4K cameras can't resolve full 4K resolution. However, these 4K cameras can resolve more lines than their 1080 counterparts and thus will result in better downsampling results.
For example, if the 4k camera could really only resolve 1100 lines but the 1080 version only 700 lines, it's obvious that you should get better 480 results from the 4k video. I've seen other comments in Panasonic threads where this is exactly what many are hoping for from the 4k video. I've also seen that 4k video editing isn't that much of an increased strain for processing.
Many are interested in using 4K in shutter-priority mode as an 8MP 30fps stills burst mode with zero buffer lag.
EthanP99: Just so we're clear, f4 is now considered "fast lens" ?
f/2.8 is always bigger than f/4 and one could also argue brighter. But f/4 can be faster than f/2.8 if the sensor allows use of higher ISO for same IQ. f/2.8 is faster glass than f/4, but not necessarily a faster camera.
Sdaniella: Leica:f=9.1mm-146mm zoomad=f/2.8-f/4.0=9.1/2.8-146/4.0=3.25mm-36.5mm aperture diameters
FF(x2.747/x2.740):Eq.FoV=25mm-400mmf-stop=FoV/ad=25/3.25-400/36.5:=25mm-400mm f7.7-f11 Eq.DoF+FoV
Thanks for noting this correctly as Eq.DoF+FoV. There are near fist fights in some of these comments over the use of Equivalent Aperture instead of the true equivalencies.
W5JCK: Bridge cameras like this one and the RX10 or still what I consider to be sub-enthusiast level. The 1" sensor is too small to deliver quality IQ at any low light level. That f/2.8 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/5.0 lens on an APC-S camera. Pretty darn slow for wide open, and thus rather lacking in low light capability. A f/4.0 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/7.1 lens on an APC-S camera. So this camera basically has a f/4--f/7.1 zoom lens compared to APS-C DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Meh! For the price of the RX10 you would be better off with a a6000 and a few good lenses. This one is cheaper, but still not worth the price for anyone who wants an enthusiasts level and above IQ. This is a mom/dad camera used to take little pictures to post on the internet. Again, meh!
You are baiting your own hook.
What's with all the Full Frame comparisons? Are you afraid that your newly established empire is cracking because of the FZ1000? Do you seriously think this camera has nothing to offer? It must, or you wouldn't be trolling the P&S stories looking for stones to throw. I suggest either taking off your blinders or pointing them back to the FF forums where the "real" photographers hang out and drink kool-aid.
The fact that aperture relates to opening vs focal length but does not use FOV nor DOF in that calculation clearly shows that you are attributing variable effective calculations based on sensor size to the known physics of aperture. That in itself shows that there really is not effective aperture but rather effective FOV and effective DOF. Why not just call them what they are and use EFOV and EDOF like we use EFL instead of trying to redefine aperture?
"But another way to look at this may also be to consider how high an ISO is usable across different size sensors. All else being equal, maybe you can re-interpret f stop "usefulness" based on ISO and noise."
Then talk about "ISO usability" or "# stops quieter" or whatever. Please don't go down the aperture equivalent rat hole.
pgphoto_ca: Be carefull....it's not a f2.8-f4 with this sensor (2.7x crop)....it's f5.6-f8 or more.......the crop factor need also to be apply to the aperture :)
A real 400mm f4...is much bigger ! :)
Per Tony Northrup:
"If you want to figure out the total light gathered, which my tests determined is the primary factor for image noise (with differing sensor technology amounting to 0.2%), then multiply the aperture by the crop factor. That allows you to calculate both depth-of-field and total image noise--easy!"
Fine, but why do you need to drag this down the "equivalents" rat hole? Leave aperture what it is and call these goofy equivalents something else like "Light Sensitivity" and "DOF". Your attempts to redefine a physical specification that's been part of photography since the beginning is just muddying the waters.
And yes, I understand 35mm equivalents - I bought my first 35mm SLR in 1974 - I just don't like relative specifications.
Again, it's equivalents that are at fault. They can be helpful but for many they can be confusing. Camera makers don't seem to realize that there is a large percentage of people who have never shot with a 35mm camera - be it film or digital - and for many of them equivalents are just too much information.Can we just use real specs? Please?
Rodger1943: Hi Richard, thanks for your comprehensive preview. Just one question at the moment. How fast is the manual focus ring? My understanding with the Sony is that its quite slow and requires many turns to get anywhere.
Good question Rodger. And is MF focus-by-wire or is it a mechanical manual focus? Good/quick manual focus capability?
The whole industry should dump equivalents and use lens specs that can stand on their own. Telescopes, binoculars, etc. can do it, why can't camera companies?
And for the sake of this argument, the FZ1000 is f/2.8-4.0 for exposure purposes, allowing for decent shutter speeds in most situations. Multiplying by the crop factor has to do with how the aperture affects DOF, not exposure.
munro harrap: I dont agree with the way it is packed here, when the DSLR should be at the bottom facing up with the lenses either side of whatever its got on. Having the centre of gravity low surely adds to its useability. That said, if its good enough for Gagne, its a win win all around!
That would put the weight of everything else on top of the camera rather then the other way around. I know it's padded and all, but I'd be more comfortable with the camera only having to hold its own weight.