I don't reply to private messages.
forpetessake: If you want a superzoom, just get any lightweight Nikon/Canon DSLR and attach an 18-200 zoom to it and it will be ahead of this Panasonic in every way. Or if you want a mirrorless camera, get a Sony A6000 with 18-200 zoom, or Samsung with 18-200, or Olympus with 14-150.Only those who are interested in half baked 4k video may find this camera interesting.
He also missed this article he's responding to, because right at the top there is a chart showing the equivalent f-stops of the Panasonic lens somewhere between f/8 and f/11.
mpgxsvcd: Could everyone stop calling these cameras “Point and Shoot” cameras. This camera is capable of being used as a point and shoot but it is not limited to only that functionality like the category name suggests. Even professional cameras have a full auto mode like this camera does.
This is a Compact Mirrorless Fixed Lens Super Zoom camera. Nothing more. Nothing Less.
Probably people call it P&S because the image quality, and slow lens are typical for P&S. In many respects it reminds the film era P&S superzooms.
If you want a superzoom, just get any lightweight Nikon/Canon DSLR and attach an 18-200 zoom to it and it will be ahead of this Panasonic in every way. Or if you want a mirrorless camera, get a Sony A6000 with 18-200 zoom, or Samsung with 18-200, or Olympus with 14-150.Only those who are interested in half baked 4k video may find this camera interesting.
"In terms of noise, the FZ1000 produces clean images up to ISO 800. You start to see some detail loss at ISO 1600 and 3200, but you'll only notice when viewing photos at or near 100% magnification."
It's quite a stretch of reality. The noise and heavy noise reduction is already visible at the base ISO in jpegs. The high ISOs look poor even at the screen size. Boost some contrast, clarity, saturation (default look is quite weak), pull some shadows and even the base ISO becomes barely usable even at screen sizes.
Black Box: The thing that REALLY irritates me (just imho) is the tooting of this camera's "future-proofing" on almost every page of this otherwise very good test.
4k is barely on the horizon. The technical requirements are enormous. Receivers, cards, storage, televisions. Not even all cables (!) are able to pump up 100Mbs! Which means a 4k-ready home-cinema will be a pretty healthy investment which, in this economy, may never come at all. It'll take a few years for 4k to catch on (if it ever does at all). This camera will be out of production by March and obsolete by next summer.
People obviously have no 4k equipment or they wouldn't be mentioning the cheap Chinese cr@p. The good quality 4k systems are expensive indeed.
quezra: One thing this article doesn't mention is that as sensor tech improves, your lenses are basically getting faster. Today's gutter standard f2.8 lenses can outshine the f/0.95 lenses of yesteryear because you couldn't push film beyond ASA 800 much (aside from being very expensive). When people complain some new 50/1.8 lens isn't "fast" it is actually a whole lot faster than a 50/1.4 lens from just 5-10 years ago because of digital improvements on the sensor. A "slow" FF kit lens (f/3.5-5.6 usually) producing indoor nighttime ambient light shots would simply be unthinkable 5 years ago.
@Death89: Equivalence is about lenses and has nothing to do with the sensor (other then area). You don't calculate equivalent lenses just because a new sensor is more efficient. You calculate equivalent lenses when the sensor size changes.
After the detailed article about the lens equivalence one could expect DPR would stop writing "24-1248mm equivalent F2.8-5.6 zoom lens", but here we go again. I guess the advertising dollars are more important than truth.
lumigraphics: Sorry but you guys botched a bunch of this. :sigh:
"Total light" is completely unimportant. Yes, there is less light hitting a smaller sensor, but it doesn't matter because its a smaller total area. Light PER SENSEL is the same.
And lenses don't matter at all. Given a frame-filling grey card (as an example) a 50mm f/4 and 100mm f/4 will give exactly the same 18% grey image on any sensor size. If lenses didn't work that way, you couldn't have external light meters.
Larger digital formats aren't less noisy because they are larger so they collect more light, its because they can have a lower sensel density. In the film days, it was because you didn't have to enlarge so much with a bigger negative.
smdh...and I'm only on page 2.
@GB: Richard Clark's measurements also confirm that read noise density depends very little on pixel density (pixel pitch), unless pixels become very small: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#DENSITY
@GB: I'm confused where you are going now. I assumed your comment was about 6 and 24mp sensors of the same size. And I simply mentioned that read noise doesn't depend on the pixel count, only on the area, so both 6 and 24mp sensors will have a similar read noise per unit area, though different noise per pixel.
@GB: "Let's consider a 6 MP sensor and 24 MP sensor where each pixel has the same read noise (say 3 e-)"
But the 'per pixel' read noise is not going to be the same. All things being equal the smaller the pixel the lower the noise power (smaller area of pn-junctions and volume). If you cut that 1 large pixel to the 4 smaller ones, the noise per that area will stay the same (disregarding the defects and losses introduced by such cutting).
@Great Bustard "So, if two systems have the same read noise per pixel, then the system with more pixels will be more noisy if the same total amount of light falls on their respective sensors."
There are many sources that contribute to the read noise (http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~wilambm/pap/2011/K10147_C011.pdf) in semiconductors, but none of them depend on the pixel count (or pixel size). You can broadly divide them into dependent on total area of pn-junctions and total volume. As a first approximation you can consider the read noise as a linear function of the inverse crop factor: O(1/crop).
Here is a hint for you. The sensor doesn't participate in equivalence calculations, other than its area you need to integrate the light flux over. The equivalence will work the same way with any ideal sensor, or any ideal CCD, or any ideal film, or any other ideal recording medium, or even if you remove the sensor altogether and attach a projection optical system that would transmit the image to the viewing screen.
Interesting, every day there are new 'debunkers' here rehashing the same arguments, the difference only in tone, but they all pretty sure they know they are correct. As somebody said, "the trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so."
There has been more than 1000 comments so far. What can be learned from them?
1) Many people don't read, at least don't engage their minds while reading, but nevertheless they are quick to reply. They don't read the replies to their replies either, or unable to comprehend them, because they keep repeating the same fallacies again and again.2) Many people have difficulty understanding simple laws of physics and elementary school arithmetic. It's really shameful state of affairs. Blame expensive government schools for that.3) the previous 2 problems are exacerbated by a "choice-supportive bias" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias). Notice that most (if not all) of the objections are coming from the people with small sensors (m4/3, 1").
Now, the really ugly thing is that most of those people are your average voters. I shudder thinking people with such cognitive faculties go to the voting booths.
Babka08: Equivalence of total light is moot because sensor quality, pixel density, etc have much more to do with "clean" images these days. You can certainly generalize that a full-frame camera will have less noise. But my Sony a850 had as much noise at iso1600 as my Sony RX100 (well, not quite, but...).Your explanations of depth of focus are helpful, and the more basic understanding of sensor crop. But other than that, you just confuse and cloud the issues.
Reread the article again. The equivalence doesn't have anything to do with the sensor, other than its area. The equivalence is all about the lens and geometric transformations you need to do to get the same results on different size ideal sensors.
fortwodriver: This is absolute BS... The f-stop is a measure of the ratio of the diaphragm opening to the focal length of the lens. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to talk about light transmission, please do your research on T-Stops and stop making this stuff up.
You think you revealed something about the article? No, you only revealed something about yourself.
DoctorJerry: Aperture equivalenceI ran a test using my Panasonic LF1 and selected sensor sizes of 12MP, 8MP, 5MP 3MP and 0.3MP. I can select those sensor sizes by using Panasonic’s EZ Zoom which trims off pixels on the perimeter of the sensor to arrive at a smaller sensor. As I read your article, I should have been needing either a higher ISO, slower shutter speed, or faster aperture as I trimmed pixels from the sensor. I found NO difference my test shots, all shot at 1/80sec, F2.0 and ISO 200, they were the same REGARDLESS of the size of the sensor I used.
Where I think you went wrong is in talking about how much less light reaches the sensor as the sensor gets smaller. What you overlooked was that the same quantity of light reached the plane of the sensor but since the sensor was smaller, it captured less light. It did NOT need all the light reaching the plane of the sensor, only enough to cover the sensor itself. According to my test f2.0 is 2.0 regardless of the sensor size.
Why don't you reread the article, because you're clearly demonstrating you didn't understand a thing.
jonas ar: From the Sensitivity equivalence paragraph:" By comparison, in good light, the generally larger pixels of a large sensor will tend to give cleaner images, without any dependence on aperture."
Why was pixel size brought into the discussion?
You are correct, as the first approximation the pixel size doesn't really matter (as long as there is no additional losses on interconnect, crosstalk and other second order effects). If you cut a large pixel to four smaller ones, nothing changes in terms of collected light, noise, or dynamic range.
Polytropia: This is a crock. There is no equivalence in apertures. F/2.8 is always F/2.8 no matter what the sensor size is. It projects the same brightness of light in all cases.
Point is: a speedlight (flash) that has a guide number of 100 feet will illuminate a subject 35.71 feet away at ISO 100 and F/2.8. No matter what your sensor size is, this will not change.
You cannot say that just because the sensor is bigger that changes anything because if you make the lens F/5.6 and do not change the flash guide number or ISO, then your exposure will be off.
Further, the amount of image noise generated is not exactly two stops "better" between, say, Four Thirds and 135-format. Neither is dynamic range. It varies based on the year the camera came out, how many pixels it has, etc.
DOF is also not exactly two stops different because DOF is affected by pixel density as well.
So stop LYING to people, DPReview.
@Polytopia -- it's one thing to not understand the topic, but it's a completely different matter to arrogantly attack those who actually do understand. People are willing to explain to the ignorant, but they have no respect or patience for an arrogant fool.
Here is a suggestion for another article: pixel vignetting. There is also a lot of confusion as to how the effect demonstrates itself on different sized sensors, and whether it effects the total light and DOF in different measure.