frankje: DPR, I am very sorry that in your last reviews of cameras with a fixed lens (Sony, Panasonic) you don't say anything about their macro capabilities and - quality. People might be interested in this, I think.
An Alberta camera retailer has posted a video that addresses the FX1000 macro performance.
Lab D: forpetessake is once again trying hard. But most know this camera is going to be extremely popular and offers video straight out the camera that is higher resolution than ALL Sony cameras under $4000. The reality DSLRs with disabled VFs and noisy lenses are not good for video.
The Sony AX100 shoots 4k video and sells for around $1,900.
oldfogey: So DPR - apart from the lens comparison and RAW image dynamic range questions frequently noted below.- How much video 4K or 1080P can the FZ1000 record on a single battery charge? Does the sensor overheat when long video clips are recorded? What are the filesizes/min? And How well does the IS system work? By the way how can any lens based IS system do "5 axis" - i.e. (especially) correct roll? And what about flash - is the wireless control the same as Olympus's or would one have to invest in a different system?
I don't have an FZ1000. Nor would I trust the earliest buyer reviews, since so many tend to be written within a few hours of purchase. But here's my $0.02 inkling:
Battery life and sensor heat control should be at least as good as the GH4, which has a larger sensor and can shoot 4k video for longer stretches than people might have hoped. 4k file size is large: best get a 128gb super-speed SDXC card, though a class 10 32gb will work. To edit 4k video requires a strong PC or software that employs proxy files.
The 5-axis IS will work in AVCHD mode, but not 4k, which supports only 3-axis. The IS will help, but not perform miracles. Video shot over 200mm equivalent will demand a steady hand and / or physical stabilization of some sort. Stabilization of video is a much tougher proposition than with still photos.
halothane: In the UK, the Sony RX10 is now widely available for £649 ( with £50 cash back on £699) and the Panasonic is £749. ($1100 & $1250 respectively). At those prices your choice will depend on what compromises you are willing to make - I have always been suspicious of bridge cameras, as they seem to promise much, but don't always deliver.
Alternatives with 1 inch sensors are limited to the Nikon 1, which with the evf kit would be not far off the price of Both these cameras together! So at present is a poor value comparison. For a similar size / weight, and £100 more, a Canon 100D and Tamron 16 - 300 would be a possible alternative; bigger sensor, better range but smaller apertures.
I would be happy to be given either the Sony or the Panasonic; but if I was buying one, I would choose the Sony, as it has a degree of weather sealing. YMMV!
Enjoy you photography!
"Weather sealing" means rubbery buttons and flaps. Would a "test" entail exposure to cool mist, sea spray, heavy rain, a sand storm, a very dusty road, pocket lint, or accidental dousing with a liter of spaghetti sauce, salad dressing, or beer?
I suspect there is an Achilles heel that the sealing can't control: the seams of the lens turret, which are always permeable to liquid or dust, and must suck in air (and contaminants) when the lens moves in or out.
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.
'..camera with a shorter zoom but a wider aperture..."
The LX8, perhaps? To be seen.
Geekapoo: When looking for a 24/7 carry camera, I initially tried the Canon S100, which I sold to purchase an Olympus XZ-1. Neither camera gave me the type of performance I wanted. Was only when I purchased a Sony RX100 that I felt I was were I wanted to be re image quality...a compromise versus my APC and m43 cameras but much better than the standard P+S. Would have purchased a Sony RX10, but felt I had most of the range covered with my Olympus OMD EM5 with the f2.8 12-40 (Oly) and 35-100 (Panny) and going to 200mm was not where I wanted to be.
I see the FZ1000 as transformative, in the same way the RX100 (and the RX10)...but at a focal range up to 400mm and more with lower MP images/cropping. Much better than the $$$ and weight (the latter being more of a critical issue to me) to do something similar with a m43, APC or FF. I'll stongly assume be happy overall, given my experiences to date with cameras (unless Panny pulls a Fuji-like x10 disaster by capturing blobs LOL).
400mm equivalent is for the birds, beasts, and belles one can photograph only from afar. Alas, there is no 5-axis stabilization in 4k video, so best to brace somehow.
Adubon, Darwin, and other early birders and biologist use shotguns to acquire their specimens for drawing and research. Captivity for zoological exhibition (aka caging) is way to bring birds with observation range. Drones with cameras seem benign by comparison.
Zvonimir Tosic: "Photography" just fell from the art of profane to the art of ridiculous. Now it even excludes human eye behind the camera, and replaces it with a remote controller. I personally don't know what this "art" is, but when something is totally removed from our senses and sensibilities, and drowns in the blind fad of times, it despises everything we sensibly believe is human side of photography.Drones are not the apparatus, but drones are people who engage in this profanity just for the sake of "ability".
Photography has always been about gadgets and tricks. Art means gadgets and tricks. Singing too is a sort of trick, though most of us do it rather poorly. Take away the gadgets, and most of us are simply bad singers.
Digitall: I need one that always bring me coffee..., please.
Interesting picture below, plans math required to make this work. The Drones many of them already have in your programming called "Security Area" Drone do the rest. I'm waiting for a Drone would definitely replace the photographer.
Aren't half photog poseurs already pretty much drones?
justinwonnacott: Military applications ? The horsefly from hell!
Replacement propellers for the military version would cost $100k each.
Jogger: Would be much cooler if it used some alien anti-gravity tech, propellers are so 21th century earth.
The Martian patent on anti-gravity does not expire until the 25th century. Time travel might fix that.
Elon Musk (half Martian or Vulcan?) promises extravagant daydream stuff, but not this.
Too noisy for studio use, and any real studio will have multiple ceiling lights and controls. Lights not strong enough to illuminate an accident or crime scene either. Night vision or infra-red lighting might be preferred for stealthy peep-owl stuff.
A spooky looking place. I can imagine Quasimodo grappling about the towered stacks and ladders, and a phantom in the basement. Were the "readers" in the photos real patrons? The badged guard probably steered away unrespectable types. Exactly what titles circulated most and least? To research any topic would be slow and tedious.
By contrast, a $125 3-terabyte hard drive can hold the equivalent of roughly 6 million 250 page volumes, which software can help one search for content, key words and so forth. Millions of texts and other media have been put on line. Have the tools made people better informed or more astute? Probably not.
Then as now, most popular reading involved practical topics, "self-improvement," entertainments, or escape.
George Veltchev: Come on guys ... the 'studio comparison' reveals that this 1' sensor battles with the noise as early as ISO200 ( just look the shadows at this settings ) ..ISO200 I am talking about !!!! WOW ...and on top of that this mediocre Leica lens is as soft as a poppy marshmallow on a hotplate, killing the detail even in the center of the frame, never mind the corners ... take it to the beach in summer, between 10:00am and 2:00pm, keep the ISO at 125 and you'll be happy as a scamp with new white leather shoes...... not bad for a lovely tight package with the modest $900 I guess !
George, there is world outside the studio and high IS0.
How much would a 6D 400mm lens cost and weigh? Absent a big fee, would you be allowed to use one in the Marcaná stadium? Would you dare, absent a body guard, lug one about in the streets outside? So far as video goes, the 6D is handicapped by softness, moiré, and jello.
trunksye: Why wouldn't one choose a combo like: Olympus M43+ lens 75-300mm? That's 150-600mm equivalent. I know there is this aperture factor, but the large sensor and better iso compensate a bit for this. And you get the flexibility of switching lens...
Video is not the whole point. Besides the 4k video, the 400mm equivalent zoom with a 1" sensor is a novel feature in a sub-$1,000 package.
One vast advantage of 4k video, even in a world of lower display resolution, is the ability to crop, stabilize, or adjust for rotation in post, without IQ loss.
The irony is that the FZ1000 can't offer 5-axis stabilization or "level shot" when shooting at 4k. This presents problems, especially when shooting at 400mm equivalent. Sad it has no internal NDF feature either.
The 400mm equivalent zoom reach is great for wildlife or other travel shots, but also means the FZ1000 will fit in no pocket. 80%+ of the time wide-angle and pocketability matter.
The discontinued coat-pocket LX7 (now very cheap) has internal NDF, as well as a colored bar option that indicates horizon. One fears the forthcoming LX8 may not.
The RX10 and RX100 series are both strong competitors, but cost more, and neither offer 4k video.
Optical: Never seen such a crap! There are plenty good examples of cheap drones on youtube with impressive videos and stills.A shame for dpreview for such a lousy article
Impressive videos and stills don't come "cheap," no matter what the gear.
The article points out, quite correctly, that drones are not easy to navigate or deliver results that impress anyone. Drones are noisy, wobble, vibrate, crash, run out of juice, and infuriate some people. Potential buyers should be duly warned, rather than be baited by exotic flyovers shots that require months of practice (and losses) or better equipment. Drone shots may find various useful applications, but probably not public events or sports. Licensing, insurance, and local ordinances make this difficult. Few players or spectactors will welcome a buzzing, gyrating gizmo over the playing field, and the fish-eye or shakey video won't be worth the trouble.
Black Box: I don't know if this camera is good or bad. Or, actually, if the competing Sony is any of those. But I know for sure, both companies are heading in MY direction - large sensor superzooms. I don't mind 4.0 lens. I don't mind the bulk. The price of Panny is fine. What I want reduced now is WEIGHT. If they need to use plastic lenses instead of glass or plastic body instead of whatever it is now, I'm fine with that, too. Just make it under 500g and it's sold!
A 100g phone camera, then.
spitfire31: I am not going to buy any new camera in this class that doesn't feature manual audio and a headphone output.
In the year 2014, audio is still receiving stepchild treatment. Sheesh!
Manual audio and headphone don't solve the fundamental problems of on-board audio capture: wind noise, handling noise, distance from subject, ambient disturbances. Serious audio usually requires a separate recorder or studio conditions outside amateur budgets or privileges.