Biological_Viewfinder: Why am I surprised that people continue to misunderstand the beauty of a fixed-lens solution?
These cameras are the beginning of the end for DSLR cameras.
They don't replace larger, heavier, bulky, multiple lenses in a backpack just yet; but as this technology matures, more and more people will come to appreciate these wonderful bridge cameras. I've waited for a decade for these cameras to arrive. It's still not quite there yet, but they are getting closer and closer to "bridging" the gap between good image quality and utter silliness of the DSLR's need for a backpack full of lenses just to take a picture.
A Nikon 80-400mm on an APS-C DSLR is 120-600mm. That one lens costs $2300. It's also large and heavy.
Some are suggesting 3rd party junk lenses like the 16-300mm. I would not ever use a super-wide to super-telephoto on a DSLR. The whole reason for a DSLR is changing lenses and image quality. Why put 3rd party anything on it???? Even a filter, even a battery. I *ONLY* use genuine!
I'd sooner have *real* bokeh and not have to spend more time in PP.
This is very true, and it's only one reason APS-C and FF sensors will continue to be around in one form or another.
Androole: The RX10 III definitely has the best wide-angle performance across the frame, no denying that. At 400mm and f/4 the difference between the FZ1000 and the RX10 III is exceptionally small, though. It's hard to call the RX10 III the winner at that FL. However, obviously the RX10 III goes to 600mm, which is a big advantage over the FZ1000.
Still, for double the price tag and 30% more weight, you really do need to weigh your options. It's an uncompromised approach to a compromise camera, but in the end the form factor is like a DSLR with a big superzoom that you're carrying around.
The weather-sealing shouldn't be overlooked either. I love carrying the FZ1000 when I don't need the IQ of my Canon DSLRs, but with the first raindrops it goes right back in the bag.
Don't forget that just as smaller sensors improve, so too will large sensors.
Marximus: I've had the RX10 III for a couple weeks, coming from the FZ1000. I really wanted the range, so pretty much as soon as I got the Sony, the Panasonic was on eBay. That was a mistake, IMO. The Sony is quite a bit slower in multiple areas: startup, autofocus, low light performance. I shot quite a bit with it and it seemed okay, but just to make sure, I purchased the FZ1000 again (crazy, I know) to do some final testing. I took it to the zoo today, and within a couple shots, the Sony was back in the bag and I used the FZ1000 for the rest of the day. The difference in my experience is nearly night and day. For all my critical areas, the Panasonic wins, hands down. Faster startup, blazing fast autofocus, better low light performance, lighter in weight, a fully articulating screen, and about half the price. After doing the comparison, one of the few areas in which the Sony is superior is with that extra reach. I looked at the comparison shots and it does appear that the Sony lens is a bit sharper. And the weather sealing/build quality is nice. But these are all compromises I'm very willing to make. I absolutely love the FZ1000 and I'll be returning the RX10 III. And I'll keep my eye out for the FZ2000:).
Very interesting comparison Marximus, thanks for that.
Looks nice, wonder how the lens performs with such a large range. I like that the body is dust & water resistant, something I sorely want on the FZ1000.
solarider: Looks interesting. Panasonic still has f2.8 throughout the whole lens range. I'll be curious to see what the next Panny comes up with and how the two measure up. Sony is gunning for top $ too.
Panasonc FZ300 is indeed f/2.8 through the range to 600mm - but that's on the FZ300 and it's much smaller 1/2.3" sensor. The FZ1000 is f/4 at the long end at 400mm.
the-bunker: Very nice - but it's too heavy. If I had to carry that weight, then I'd choose FF
No, you'd be carrying around a LOT more weight - not to mention size - to get 600mm in FF.
Peiasdf: Ignore the fact the camera module ripped off iPhone's resolution, HTC's UltraPixel and Canon's Dual Pixel, I am sure the result would be great.
Well, Apple ripped off Motorola because their iPhone takes & receives calls.
Marksphoto: I never got the pro bodies, they are weather sealed but they are studio cameras...? Why would a wedding photographer want to carry all this bulk when 1 battery on the 5d mk iii will last all day or you swap it. Can anyone explain?
There's nothing common about it ;-)
It's primarily a sports/wildlife camera. So it's used outside a lot; kinda makes sense to make it weather sealed dontcha think?
ScanSpeak: Sounds like all the non professionals don't care for this camera.
Fortunately this pro camera is not for them.
As a non-professional I would love to own this camera. But as a non-professional I can't budget it.
Woodlink: What happens when you loose the glove with the SD Card?
You're out $64 + the sd card and any images on it?
aliasfox: With a 1/1.7" sensor (and lens to match), it would pretty much kill what remains of the Powershot S line of cameras (S110, S120) - similar price, size, and specs, but you can truly throw it in a backpack and carry it around outdoors and not worry too much about how you treat it.
Someone mentioned that people looking in this category are cheap - definitely true. I'd rather damage a $300 device and shrug it off than damage a $1000 device and actually be sad. Besides, for people who really need a good active/underwater camera, there are underwater housings.
I view it like I view my watches - I have a cheap quartz watch and a nicer watch, both are water resistant to my needs, but I'd much rather bring the cheaper watch when I go in the water - just less to risk.
Larger sensor = larger optics and larger housing. The Olympus Air does not include a lens, nor is it water & shockproof.
A 1/1.7" sensor in a durable waterproof housing will also nearly double the price. The market won't bear a $700 point/shoot when most people are happy enough to stick their iPhone in a waterproof case.
The composition & exposure are very good. One thing that would have made a big difference is a slower shutter speed to show prop blur, somewhere around 1/320. With the props frozen it just looks a little too static.
Sorry, that just seems more than a bit strange.
Tilted Plane: A pretty careful avoidance of Nikon (or Sony) comparisons, overall. Too bad. Head-to-head comparisons are really (!) helpful. Does this hold up next to a D750? Or even the D610? Or the similarly priced A7II? If so, when, where, under what shooting conditions?
pwilly, where can you find a FF camera that does 10fps while maintaining AF at a cost of $1,799?
razadaz: Fair upgrade on the 7D, but after all the secrecy and expectations I was left feeling seriously underwhelmed.
Unrealistic expectations will often do that.