If using a $900 lens "helps" this camera isn't worth the purchase price. Yes, I know all the stuff about the best camera is the one with you, but it's a camera, image quality is pretty important.
I don't get it. A tripod is, essentially, one piece. This device is three. How does that make this easier?
For the money, there are better cameras.
Priced right, this would be awesome! Brilliant to make it compatible with all the great M43 lenses out there! Yay, Kodak is back!
jkokich: Serious question time! I have a Sony A57 which I love. I've shot short films that have been accepted to festivals. Given the FZ's sensor and processor, do you think/how much do you think the video would be improved over the A57, or does the Sony's larger sensor win out?
120 to 35: To DPR: Please include the actual sensor dimensions. 1" or a fraction of an inch is not an actual measurement.
It's been years since math class, but if 1 inch equals 25.4 mm (I think), where does that inch come from? What is being measured? I have obviously missed something. Please explain, or point me to the post/thread I've overlooked. Thanks!
wootpile: I have never shot anything at over 200mm. Still, the fz1000 seems like a pretty good grab-and-go camera. I would prefer a shorter lens and smaller size though. Good to see the 1-inch sector growing! Nikon - are you zzz?
BarnET that made me laugh! Thanks!
Serious question time! I have a Sony A57 which I love. I've shot short films that have been accepted to festivals. Given the FZ's sensor and processor, do you think/how much do you think the video would be improved over the A57, or does the Sony's larger sensor win out?
Do the pictures justify the price? No.
ukuleleguy: I use Leicas and I was quite excited when I saw the announcement for this camera. Yes there are a lot of cameras out there with more features and lower cost. Some of those cameras are quite nice but they are just a step away from the parts drawer. I used to use Canon film cameras and I loved them . When I switched to digital I bought a Canon and it died, SO I bought another and it too died, SO I bought another and it died. Each time the repairs exceeded the price of the latest model. After a while I decided to swicth and I bought a Leica. I have been happy ever since. If you like buying a new camera every couple of years than buying a cheaper camera will fit the bill, likewise if you do not have the $ to spend and still want decent performance. A Leica is not for everyone. BUT if you like quality, want to keep your camera for a long time, want to take a lot of photos and get amazing customer service then a Leica may be for you. Leica provides the tools I prefer. I want a T!
I've owned many cameras over forty years. None of them have died. What in Heaven's name do you do to them?
jkokich: 4K from what has to be a tiny sensor? I have a serious question: If a full frame sensor is supposed to be superior for image quality and video (feel free to correct any of these assumptions), why do many professional video cameras have smaller sensors?
Thanks! I've always wondered.
4K from what has to be a tiny sensor? I have a serious question: If a full frame sensor is supposed to be superior for image quality and video (feel free to correct any of these assumptions), why do many professional video cameras have smaller sensors?
Wow, talk about a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. I don't have any problems transferring files.
SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.
And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.
I have no problems transferring files. What problems are you people creating?
He was an idiot then, and he's still an idiot.
I love how people complain. This camera is amazing. I want one. I'm an indie filmmaker, and would love to have the flexibility this camera will provide by allowing me to use less lighting equipment. Will I shoot at 400k? Hell, yeah! It lengthens my shooting day! If I need to shoot something that looks like dusk, and it's midnight, I can do that. I'm thinking 1600 will be absolutely spectacular, as well.
bobbarber: Two thoughts:
2) Aperture was f2.8. There are a lot of cheap f1.4 film lenses out there that could be adapted, which would get another two stops!
Jeez, I hadn't thought of that... Holy crap!
People are actually criticizing this? Okay, you go on complaining while I make movies with no budget.
daddyo: This is actually quite impressive. Just a few years back, no one would have imagined these kinds of ISO settings, nor this kind of image quality at such settings.That said, crappy light is still crappy light, and just because you can shoot in this light and get a discernible image is no reason to become obsessed with shooting in crummy light anymore than is absolutely necessary.Shooting in these lighting conditions is like trying to see how many pots of coffee you can brew using the same grounds -- after a while it becomes a bad joke.
Very well put, RED.