danieladougan: So this is a really interesting option and probably the best point-and-shoot camera available today. A true bridge camera.
But, for that same amount of money or less, you can get a two-lens DSLR or mirrorless camera kit.
"Sure," you say. But those lenses aren't as fast. You'd be right, they're not. But with larger sensors, you can make up for the slower lenses by dialing up the ISO. You get more ISO flexibility with a mirrorless or DSLR camera by 1-2 stops, which makes up for it.
In terms of shallow depth of field, you won't get it with a camera like this, as you can see with the "equivalent aperture" charts.
Instead, spend your $800-900 on a two-lens ILC kit and then go find a used portrait prime lens somewhere.
The only real advantage of a camera like this over entry-level interchangeable lens cameras is that you don't have to carry QUITE as much around because it's an all-in-one solution. But this is a pretty bulky camera considering it's just a very good point & shoot.
One great thing about Micro 4/3 is that almost every lens is designed to be shot wide open. They are so sharp you don't need to stop them down. Almost every review of Micro 4/3 lenses that I read says something like, "This lens is so sharp you won't have a problem using it wide open...how do they do it?" That includes the kit lenses.
I can't really comment on the kit lenses for consumer DSLRs.
If you're savvy enough to care about sensor size and lens aperture (and you're spending $800 on a camera), the simple task of switching lenses is probably not a huge burden. Some enthusiasts might say, "Wow, I can get a camera with an f2.8-f4 25-400mm equivalent lens for $800!" not realizing what they lose in ISO flexibility. I almost got sucked in by it myself.
The FZ1000 and RX10 would be a huge hit at $500 or even $600. But $800 or more is asking just a bit too much. Give the RX10 a teleconverter and
The person buying this camera is not stepping up from a smartphone.
The Sony RX10 is a teleconverter away from being ideal.
If the Panasonic FZ1000 were f2.8 from 28-200 and then f4 from 200-400, then that would work too. But the aperture in the FZ1000 drops off to f4 too early in the zoom range.
You lose about a stop of light in terms of ISO flexibility between this and 4/3 or APS-C due to the smaller sensor size, a constant f2.8 lens that extends all the way to a 400mm equivalent would make it truly compelling given the comparable pricing.
I used one of these in 2002 when I worked as a reporter/photographer for a community newspaper. It was, for its time, a pretty incredible machine even three years after it was introduced.
Compared to the Canon PowerShot A40 that I had just received quite excitedly as a college graduation gift, the D1 I used at work was like something out of a science fiction movie. It was lightning fast to focus and shoot, it had crazy low-light ability (ISO 1600), and the f2.8 AF-S zoom lenses that the newspaper had to go along with it were stellar.
Today with the improvements in sensor technology, you can get similar image quality in a smart phone (with a lot more resolution), and the professional DSLRs are just leaps and bounds ahead.
It's impossible to overstate just how significant a camera the D1 was for photojournalism and photography in general. Total game changer.
I think most people are just after better photos. If they're REALLY concerned about size and portability, they're probably not going to buy this camera anyway since it's quite bulky.
So who is it really for?
It's very expensive for a point-and-shoot...more expensive than many entry-level DSLR and mirrorless kits, even with two lenses.
The faster lens is a selling point over interchangeable lens cameras, but the smaller sensor negates that selling point.
In terms of wide angle, Panasonic has a new 12-32mm kit lens. But if you're buying the FZ100, are you primarily concerned about wide angle? Probably not. This camera was built for telephoto.
Canon's 2-lens Rebel T3i bundle for $799 covers a full-frame equivalent range of 28.8-480mm. http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-rebel-t3i-ef-s-18-55mm-is-ii-lens-kit-with-ef-75-300mm-f-4-56-iii?cm_sp=SP-_-estore-_-
The biggest selling point I can think of for this camera is the 4K video. But how useful is that for a P&S camera?
danieladougan: The lack of phase detect AF on this camera is baffling. Olympus thinks that the only advantage to PDAF is for old 4/3 lenses (and so they only included it on the E-M1) but it's also useful for tracking moving subjects with Micro 4/3 lenses. And, if I'm not mistaken, legacy 4/3 lenses can be adapted to ANY Micro 4/3 camera, not just the E-M1.
If the Sony a6000 can include PDAF for WAY less money than either the E-M1 or the E-M5, then why can't Olympus do this with all of its camera bodies? It's such a huge barrier for adoption. They should have put it on the E-PL7 and E-M10 as well. That would get me to upgrade from my E-PL5.
Very impressive compared to what? The previous E-M5? The E-M1? A DSLR?
Dear Sony: How about offering a teleconverter for this camera?
So this is a really interesting option and probably the best point-and-shoot camera available today. A true bridge camera.
onezerosix: i'm debating on DMC-FZ1000 or Sony A6000. I'll be taking pictures at family events & scenery shots. which be better choice? i'm not really looking for 4k video.
skysi asked "why pay for 4K?"
What makes 4K so interesting to me is that you can take 8 MP photos with a 24 fps burst rate. Video is, after all, just a series of photographs. How good is that if you're shooting action?
Also, the FZ1000 has a long lens (400mm in full-frame terms) with, at worst, an f4 aperture. Now think how much that would cost and how bulky that would be with even a mirrorless camera let alone a DSLR.
The lack of phase detect AF on this camera is baffling. Olympus thinks that the only advantage to PDAF is for old 4/3 lenses (and so they only included it on the E-M1) but it's also useful for tracking moving subjects with Micro 4/3 lenses. And, if I'm not mistaken, legacy 4/3 lenses can be adapted to ANY Micro 4/3 camera, not just the E-M1.
This camera really needed the dual fast AF from the E-M1 in order to be appealing.
I hope Olympus considers making that feature available in more cameras in its line.
Your move, Olympus.
Perhaps a Pen E-P7 (or E-PL8) with a built-in EVF? I'd also like phase detect autofocus, please. Does the GM5 include in-body stabilization?
The hybrid EVF/OVF that you see in some of the Fuji cameras is also an intriguing idea.
If Panasonic can put this lens on a fixed-lens camera, they should also make a kit lens like this for their ILC Lumix line. I would totally buy that lens and put it on my Olympus E-PL5, maybe even selling my two primes and my current kit zoom in exchange. Compact with a fast aperture.
They're not seriously going to call it the OMG, are they? Really, Olympus?
The pull out EVF is a GREAT IDEA for video shooters, especially those using some sort of stabilization arm, brace, shoulder mount, etc. This makes much more sense than the tilting EVF on the Panasonic GX7.
I don't mind that the FZ1000 has an f2.8-f4 lens to add to the focal length. I just wish it could stay at f2.8 longer. Bend that curve in the other direction...line for line with the RX10 and then bend upward to f4 during the longer focal lengths. THAT would be killer.
I shudder to think about what the price would be, but how about a 14-150mm f2.8 lens? Or at least f2 - f4 in that focal range with a retracting mechanism. Micro 4/3 is all about portability and compactness, right? So one do-it-all lens that can take better-than-kit-lens photos would be perfect for a hobbyist like me. I'd probably want a macro converter to slap on it occasionally, but I could carry all of that and a flash in my small bag.
I think that would be extremely useful. For all practical purposes a lens like that could replace all four of the lenses in my bag. I'd be willing to trade my 25mm f1.4 and my 45mm f1.8 if I could get good contrast and f2.8 from an all-in-one zoom. This lens, though, is redundant to the existing offering from Olympus and inferior to the OIS Panasonic lens without being cheaper. C'mon, Tamron. I'm rooting for you!
(Sounds like I would be the perfect target customer for the Sony RX10, eh? Hindsight is 20/20 at f2.8.)
thornhale: I have over the past few weeks followed this site closely and read many of the reviews for mirrorless cameras which I plan to buy for me and my wife.
I have narrowed the choice down to the Olympus OM-D E-M10 and the Lumix GX7. Both camera's got raving reviews/ratings.
I don't like the price for the GX7 quite as much as that of the E-M10. Also no IS for videos is also not great. On the other hand, my wife really wants to have in-camera panoramic stitching which the E-M10 does not have, and although videos are image-stabilized, the fps is only 30. What is one to do??!
Anyway, I note that many owners of this camera are quite happy with this camera. On the other hand, I notice that on this site at least, Olympus cameras are much more popular (any of the OM-D cameras: http://www.dpreview.com/products/slrs/statistics?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu). The question that comes to mind is: Why is that?
I. Want. This. Camera.
Here's the biggest reason in my book -- the tilting EVF. Not so much because it tilts (although that's a nice bonus) but because it doesn't add much in the way of bulk to the camera. It's both compact AND full-featured.
There's a saying that "the best camera is the one you have with you," and if you can take a great camera with you more often, then you'll take more and better pictures. The difference between the OM and GX7 body styles might not seem like a big deal, but now with the pancake zoom lens (or, better, the pancake prime lenses), the tilting EVF and a built-in pop-up flash, this could be a truly pocketable camera without any real compromises.
If only someone could make a killer f2.8 telephoto lens that retracts into a pancake, then that would be just about perfect.