Chronis: exactly what Canon needed at this point... another expensive lens for those already invested in their system...
shows how out of touch they are, building trimmings for bodies that (given the choice) any sensible customer would have at the bottom of his list...
I thought the 'sensible customer' remark pertains to people who are not lumbered with history, i.e. those able to make a clean choice today without bias. 'Bottom of the list' does make some sense given Canon's seeming reluctance to update
With dslr and big and heavy lenses, why not Nikon?
vroger1: Anyone think there'll be a "Leica" version?? They didn't bother with the GM1- buth this one will sell like hotcackes...I think.
Leica may not be entirely happy about people using Olympus, Panasonic and Sigma branded lenses on a Leica camera. Hence they clone Panasonic fixed lens cameras no problem, but M43 probably not.
The Squire: £825?That's only £26 more than WEX is taking pre-orders on the LX100!The cheapest way to buy a red dot yet!?!?
Exactly. Esp. if someone needs LR. However, in the UK Panasonic is prone to have somewhat frequent promotion drives.
Serious Sam: peevee1......
M43 has some good lens like the 35-100 2.8 only let down by the sensor. It is amazing how Panasonic can make that lens so light.
Although the price for this lens is high, but then I look at Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS....Fuji price is not bad. Things like this lens will always be expensive. Lucky I did not wait for this and bought XF 55-200 F3.5-4.8
According to numerous test pictures and example pictures, the 35-100 does not have LoCA, which seems to indicate that it is a true APO lens, or somehow achieved what a true APO lens can achieve in effect, something of a rarity in fast zooms. The distortion and vignetting (the adjective 'huge' is purely subjective and meaningless) are easily corrected in post or even in camera, unlike LoCA which current algorithms are still struggling with. Lens optical design should be holistic with the cameras the lens is designed for, hence spending a lot of weight, size, quality compromises and money on things that can be easily dealt with in computers and ignoring issues that computers find difficult is very bad design, from which the Panasonic does not suffer.
Anonymous trolls accusing you of stealing your own work will have no real impact if they stay anonymous - those who believe them are not intelligent to worry about - and the moment they decide to reveal who they really are, end of story.
Fundamentally those who are swayed by anonymous rumours are not ones you want to impress anyway, perhaps.
jl_smith: Very nice pics - on #1 and #2, though, the darker portion of the frame at the top is sorta distracting - I'm not sure if this is evidence of a polarizer "dark spot", but I think they could be slightly improved with a bump in exposure to even out the frame. It doesn't look to be vignetting (either natural or purposely) because it's uneven.
Otherwise, love all the shots - nice work to everyone!
They look to me to be actual darker areas in situ. These are with the sun in the frame. The sky gets darker further away from the sun in the hemisphere centred around the sun.
Sirandar: I am fairly impressed with this camera, and if I hadn't bought an EM5 I would probably get one.
The dynamic range and low light performance isn't nearly as good and the FZ1000 seems pretty noisy above 800
To never have to change a lens actually outweighs both these cons for everyday practical use.
From my experience with the Pana FZ30, I found that the lack of dynamic range and telephoto end that was too slow to be useful are the only reason I am stilll not using it, megapixels be damned.
The dynamic range on the FZ1000 isn't bad .... may not be a limitation.
I have a suspicion that the telephoto end of the FZ1000 and may be still to slow to capture great pics in anything but the brightest light. That and the noise at high ISO, may limit this camera at the long end.
A lot of the feature crippling has to do with the GH4, unfortunately. They have to not get one of their cheaper cameras to step on the toes of their most expensive unit.
For really long tele work under non-ideal lighting, maybe the forthcoming Olympus 300/4 coupled with the best M43 sensor at the time when the lens becomes available will be the best choice, if one does not want to work with an SLR.
Does the wind/draught/turbulence need additional management?
PerL: A few comments regarding the final thoughts. Personally I would definitely prefer to carry the better camera for an exclusive trip like that. And a 7D with a 70-200 is really not that behind in reach - 320 eqv vs 400 eqv on the super zoom. Not to mention that the 400 mm on the 7D is a 640 eqv, quite a bit longer. Finally, the AF of the 7D should be more capable of dealing with breaching whales (read M Reichmanns experiences from Antarctica).
@StephanSchmidt: @Jogger meant physical size not MP size. Hence the crop to get 400 equivalent with 200 zoom would produce an 11.5MP or so image, not 16MP.
PHOTOJOE55: Can the FZ1000 be set at (and open to) f2.8 at 200mm?
No. It's F4 by that stage. See the graph on the first page of this article. F2.8 only exists at the widest setting.
munro harrap: Whilst it is good news to see Dpreview AT LAST supplying the actual area of the sensors, the review STILL do not tell you how these machines focus and zoom.
Is it all by wire? Does focussing take as long manually as you take to focus?Does zooming take as long manually as it takes you to zoom the lens in and out, or do you twist the grip and then have to wait for the by wire zooming to catch up with you at its own prederermined rate.
There was so little information available at its release that I ordered an RX10 from John Lewis, but then had to cancel as someone online was claiming that the zoom rate was out of your control, making it useless for documentary work.
To BE a review you must know and declare the truth of the matter, along with the shutter lag times- because these determine if the user CAN choose when the shutter fires, or must wait for the camera to take the picture sometime afterward.
Why should we have to search other sites for these absolutely vital informations?
I suppose family/holiday videography would benefit from power zooms? Not speaking from experience. For stills, one advantage (not too sure if this is the case here) is power zooms tend to not suffer from zoom creep unless the weight of elements can overpower the motor.
But that is not necessarily true, because by wire is not necessarily less nimble than direct mechanical links, or airplanes would not have evolved to by wire en masse where there are massive numbers of human lives in stake. It is also not reasonable to ask a pre-review to answer this kind of question with confidence as the reviewers need to have worked extensively to have a good feel about this kind of thing. Hence my view is that the disappointment and frustration are misplaced, for now at least.
The main problem, if there is a problem, of by wire zooming is that most implementations take both positional and speed input so precision might be difficult to control without visual feedback. And I am not convinced most people could train for this. It's not a speed (nimbleness) thing but more a precision thing.
Are zooms in bridge cameras like those in compacts, i.e. zooming through a relatively small number of discrete steps (e.g. seven steps), or like those in interchangeable lens systems that zoom either continuously or through a large number of very small steps (effectively continuously)? What about this particular zoom?
If even one of focusing or zooming is not by wire, they cannot share the same ring. You don't need dpr telling you obvious stuff like this. Zooming takes as long as what? So long as when you stop your fingers the lens stops zooming it takes as long as your hand movements - and this is pretty much true for any zoom. A mechanical zoom has a 'predetermined rate' too. Come to think about it, your hand has a predetermined rate. You certainly cannot move your fingers at the speed of sound for instance. In the entire history of photography up to today, all photographers have been waiting for the camera to take the picture sometime afterwards - the camera with zero delay, and come to think of it, the human with zero delay between his brain and his fingers, have yet to be developed. Delays etc. are done in the full review on dpr by custom, and this is not yet a full review. When the full review appears, and after reading it carefully, then you can make these charges stick.
Horshack: The FZ is sharper than the RX10 @ 200mm but looks significantly softer at the wide end.
To my eyes in both the studio and the WA real world comparisons, I prefer the Sony when looking at the left hand side of the images and either prefer Panasonic or have no preference when looking at the right hand side. Perhaps the differences between the two models are smaller than sample variations within each model?
otoklikBG: Is it just me or there is something strange going on with this test. At ISO 200 (RX10 base ISO) and 400 RX kicks Panasonic's ass at everything (RAW). But at ISO 800 on RX10 falls apart, even sharpness get totally lost like there is gel or something in front of a lens while FZ produces much sharper images from 800 on (not in comparison to 800 but in comparison to it's own ISO 200-400 test shots). Is that a mistake or something I don't understand is going on there.
The left hand side of the image is better with Sony and the right hand side is better with Panasonic. But this 'better' is so minute in each case that 'ass kicking' is total hyperbole.
It's possible to tune a sensor to be optimal at some point.
tt321: NO touch screen! What are they thinking?
With a number of their current M43 machines, the EVF is higher quality than the LCD and the latter is still touch screen. These are not related issues. You can actually use the EVF at the same time as using the LCD as a touchpad - not for viewing, just for touchpad control actions, almost like a mouse.
NO touch screen! What are they thinking?
clicstudio: I am tired of all these purists who think that Photoshop is the work of the devil.Photography, since it's creation, is fake. It's a fake representation of reality through a complicated set of lenses to capture something that is not what the human eye can see. We don't see in "macro" or can see Bokeh. Those are things created by humans to make photos more 3D and to fake a view of two eyes into one single lens.If you think about it, cameras have only one "eye", one aperture one shutter speed. Cameras can only see one thing either light or dark, what's in between is very limited, so that's why you need another element to fake reality, like a flash. Humans have so much more dynamic range. So there is no way any camera in the world can capture would be Really see.Raw photo without any processing, it's already unreal. Think about it. Photoshop is just another tool. Just like it is to have a fast lens that will create a creamy blurry background. That is just another way of using tools at our disposal, to create an effect. Also, black-and-white photography is another unreal approach to photography. Nobody sees him black-and-white, people that say that black-and-white photos are more artistic are just limited to the knowledge of shooting and color. Which is a lot harder. You have to think of White Ballas, exposure, and Other elements which are "forgiven" in black-and-white.Stop complaining about postprocessing and go out there and shoot something great instead.
It's not about postprocessing. It's about potentially posing the shots then claiming to have captured them in actual mid action, and potentially representing dead animals as live ones. When we see a magic show, we know everything is fake, the performers don't usually claim otherwise and the audience is satisfied with this understanding and applaud their tricks. When they do claim otherwise we expect evidence. When we see photographs it's usually assumed that a "normal" photographic process was used, and if not, any extra tricks are usually known and explained to some degree. Add the concept of cruelty to animals, which is always an emotive issue, photography or not photography, you inevitably get these arguments. None of the techniques you listed has the remotest potential of hurting anything, so are not related to the protests. Some might object to method purism, others could quite rightly object to image fundamentalism.