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?
thanks for explanation tt321.
we have examples like 18-300 mm mechanical lens. As 'drivability' or maneuver is different for different people, I think the attempt should be to match some sample lens like above in control.
tt321,//A mechanical zoom has a 'predetermined rate' too. Come to think about it, your hand has a predetermined rate.//It seems you will write any useless thing, as long as you have logical point or scientific truth in it. Your explanation about 'rate' barely matters as the original question asked was 'will the zoom/focus be limited or nimble and direct as in SLRs'.
the answer is 'limited since it is by wire'.
tt321: 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?
The latter, but not continuous.
Though not continuous, both my panasonic cameras (FZ-20,FZ-150) do a very good job of smoothing it out, that make me feel like it is continuous. But it is neither continuous nor feels discrete, but in-between. i.e. fuzzy.
However, this FZ1000 has a zoom-ring instead of zoom lever. So it will work more like continuous.
jaykumarr: The sony camera used in this test, is a poor quality one. It has consistently produced sharper output in RHS and softer output in LHS. This flaw is present in all the photos.
JordanAT,I have over used my Panasonic FZ-20. For first few months, I used softly.. later casually for first two years, later really hard without any care at all. Though I felt it had some kind of slight OOF in some places, it was ok. Nothing to say as 'severe'.
yes.. it is quality issue.. sorry that I wrote the other way around. It is Sharper in LHS. ( see the studio shot OR adhoc metal fence in architecture scecne.
I m not even sure if it is fair for dpreview to take this one for comparison.
The sony camera used in this test, is a poor quality one. It has consistently produced sharper output in RHS and softer output in LHS. This flaw is present in all the photos.
peevee1: DPR wrote: "The first thing you'll notice here is that a) the Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 is noticeably sharper"
Huh? Check out the brick building near the bottom right corner, and a yellow structure near it. There is no question about which one is sharper - of course it is Panasonic. There is not difference in the center, but FZ1000 clearly wins in the corners, at least at wide end.
Panasonic is over all softer than Sony.
peevee1, please look at the metal fence in left bottom corner. There is no doubt that Sony is sharper.
But there is a flaw in Sony camera sample. It is consistently taking RHS much softer than LHS. That is (LHS) where Panasonic wins.
All the photos are excellent, with new element in every photo. The efforts to take these photos is great..
jaykumarr: Dpreview, There should be a measure at 500mm. After 400mm jumping 200 mm to 600 does not cut it.
My opinion is, for the price this lens is very good. But 600mm is mere feel good, since at 600mm it just provides 10%-15% more resolution than a 400mm prime. (even comparing with this lens itself, it will bring about 20-25% more detail only zooming from 400 -> 600)
The canon 200-400mm resolves 15% more throughout the range, but too pricey.
From the replies here, I can see how people can be so cheap and mean.What I wrote is perfectly right. If you want, simply disprove what I mentioned.But don't try to put words of your imagination into my mouth, and ask me to explain it.Cheapos,1) I clearly mentioned canon 200-400mm is TOO pricy. 2) I clearly mentioned for the price, lens is very good.3) My measurements about resolution is perfect. Don't try to teach me math. By your answers, I see you lack ability to calculate and infer.
this is for fool forpetessake, who relates cropping and DOF:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk&t=255
You all go and have group 8ex and stop wasting my time please.
Kevin Sutton: How can it be sharp at 600mm on FF but less sharp on APS-C?
Lawrecew, the APS-C takes detail from smaller portion of the lens.. how horrible it is? that is why it is ALWAYS less detailed..
Dpreview, There should be a measure at 500mm. After 400mm jumping 200 mm to 600 does not cut it.
nicolaiecostel: 6.3 ? Seriously ?
6.3 makes sense since it provides compactness for the lens too. 6.3 is not slow when iso1600 compensates and yeilds quality output. The loss of bokeh in 6.3 cannot be avoided, but a person who worries about bokeh in the tele-end probably won't buy a mirrorless compact anyway.
jaykumarr: My observations in this pic:1) Sony is a bit sharper at center & top left. Everywhere else Panasonic is sharper.2) There is chromatic aberration in panasonic's output.3) The panasonic has better lens, while sony has better sensor.4) Sony applies a little more denoising in default mode than panasonic.
I wish dpreview do comparison in long end too.
0lf, Fropetessake,True, the entire left side Sony wins. I don't understand what kind of conclusion we can come too, if there are differences like this.
But one thing clear: Panasonic/Leica can no longer boast the 'detail supremacy'. Others are getting very close.
Still panasonic is solidly sharper in RHS edges, while Sony is moderately sharper in LHS.
thanks Mr Butler.. I understand.. but then you can take photos of say moon (yeah that changes everyday, depends on weather too) or Big Ben (which is affected by weather too)
My observations in this pic:1) Sony is a bit sharper at center & top left. Everywhere else Panasonic is sharper.2) There is chromatic aberration in panasonic's output.3) The panasonic has better lens, while sony has better sensor.4) Sony applies a little more denoising in default mode than panasonic.
mauijohn: The japanese plan after they occupied the Philippines is to mine all the natural resources of the entire island of the Philipines such as copper, gold, timber, iron etc. They will use the people of the Philippines to work manually young and old and they just killed those too weak to work. Japan has a very low on those natural resources on their land. I will called this big time terrorism that will look Boko Haram and alquida combined like a chiken.
1) One person claiming that he got a Ph.D is pointless, since no one can verify it. Even can claim to have won Nobel prize, Turing award, Japan prize all twice.2) When a Nobel laureate was called as 'negro', what one's Ph.D can do?3) How foolish is a person to brag that he got a Ph.D, when no one questioned his education / brain functionality? I told I have a masters degree since someone told I am a moron and have brain.
Ok.. whites are supreme race... They are kindest, but unfortunately had to drop few bombs. you know, whites will do anything to save this world..
could you please explain, Why America sent the biggest war ship then 'USS Enterprise' to nuke India in December 11, 1971 supporting Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Was India Terrorizing US by attacking pearl harbor?Another example of American pride :http://www.npr.org/2013/09/29/226578486/how-two-brothers-waged-a-secret-world-war-in-the-1950s
stdavid: Munro the Americans were at war. Terrorism is a much different matter. It was a terrible decision to drop those bombs. I totaly agree. But lets not forget the Japanese were masters of terrorism. Just google the"The Rape of Nankin" that took place in 1937 in which the Japanese slaughtered 300,000 of the 600,000 residents of that city in six weeks. And..there was NO war.
Ok, could you please explain, Why America sent the biggest war ship then 'USS Enterprise' to nuke India in December 11, 1971 supporting Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Was India Terrorizing US by attacking pearl harbor?http://www.npr.org/2013/09/29/226578486/how-two-brothers-waged-a-secret-world-war-in-the-1950s American pride
hrt: The only way we can possibly learn to stop wars is to know about the disasters, cruelty and sorrows of war - and photography is indeed a powerful media for spreading that knowledge around the world. From this standpoint, I don't really get the idea of auctioning Nagasaki photos for an individual's ownership.All such photos should be shared publicly to remind us possible insanities of our species.
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/29/226578486/how-two-brothers-waged-a-secret-world-war-in-the-1950s American pride
Smeggypants: One of the world's most extreme acts of terrorism. We should never forget so that such a repulsive act never happens again!!!