ObelixCMM: Compact?Lumix FZ1000 is bigger than Canon T5i, Nikon D5300, Pentax K-3....
Sure, you could argue that. Meanwhile the FZ1000 actually fits in a smaller camera bag. My Lowepro Adventure TLZ15 for example. Or with the lens hood attached, my Cirrus TLZ15. Snug fits in both cases, and certainly no room for the APS-C alternatives.
So yeah, we can all argue lots of things ;)
All of which, when combined with any of the cameras mentioned, would be both larger AND heavier than the FZ1000.
Not that the differences are great. In fact arguably they are almost irrelevant give that once size and weight exceed a certain threshold, the inconvenience factor sort of plateaus a bit.
But it is nonetheless incorrect to say the FZ1000 is BIGGER than any of these combinations.
Good luck taking photos without a lens.
Meanwhile, back on Earth: http://camerasize.com/compact/#490.314,556,ha,t
That's probably one of the lightest and most compact options that cover roughly the same focal length range.
Kerry Pierce: I would like to see comparisons (and images) to some of the medium format sensors, especially WRT total light.
It's all good. I should have been more clear about who I was addressing.
I was referring to Kerry's pet theory about total light not being the primary factor in the noise equation (for a given sensor generation).
All the evidence is, to an overwhelming degree, on your side. In the colloquial sense equivalence isn't a theory, it's a fact.
But why would anyone want to ruin a pet theory by examining the available evidence? That's a recipe for disaster!
rovingtim: Every dog has his day, eh Joe? :-)
I wonder if the people slamming you realise they are also slamming DPReview? The whole world is wrong except them ...
"The whole world is wrong except them ..."
The defining characteristic of the crank/crackpot.
gLOWx: 18MP on 1/2.3" ?They probably didn't learned from their past experience when ppl reproched bad image quality on their FZ45/FZ100 14MP, and came back to 12MPMay be, with technology upgrade, 14MP now...but certainly NOT 18MP.Some pics here are taken with slow shutter speed...probably a little shake ?.
Very limited dynamic range to me.Amost alll pictures seems overexposed, even if they are not, due to "dynamic shrink". May be because most pictures are JPEG on-camera ? Or general "softness", giving this illusion ?My old FZ38 do better with a similar 1/2.3 sensor size, but very older tech.On the positive side, not so much noise on 400ISO for a small sensor ;)I love Panasonic bridges...but i prefer Olympus point and shoot ;) In the early days, Panasonic was giving the same quality attention to their P&S than their bridges...but now they are running the consumer megapixel race, like Sony.A chance, they don't do that on their bridges and "enthusiast" P&S...for now ;)
You misunderstand. I'm not talking about sensor size here, I'm talking about pixel size/density. Artistico was suggesting that the TZ60/ZS40 would have put out better quality images if the sensor had a lower pixel count. So were you actually. But this is quite simply a myth born out of a misguided tendency to judge sensor performance at the pixel level instead of at the aggregate image level.
Further reading: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=706255
Then set it to output 8MP JPEGs. Simple. The camera uses a resizing algorithm that does pixel averaging and therefore reduces noise. You also end up with greater detail resolution in many circumstances than you would if the sensor was 8MP native.
In other words, stop fretting over performance myths, exercise some control over the output, and get on with enjoying photography ;)
LensBeginner: I dare say that the (Ricoh-)Pentax XG-1 blows the better one of these two out of the water...
You're probably right. Bigger, better, badder specs than the SX520 HS, same price, and an EVF.
Again, not a good one, but as they say, the best EVF is the one you have with you ;)
cainn24: A superzoom without an EVF is an abomination. Really. Look that word up. Here:
a·bom·i·na·tion[uh-bom-uh-ney-shuhn]noun1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.
They bother me deeply...
You can buy a Fuji S4900 for ~$150 (or less) with a 30x zoom AND an EVF (to name just one example among many). Amazing huh? Maybe some benevolent competitor gave Fuji a bunch of free EVF modules or something.
(the EVF in question isn't great, but it's better than nothing)
Richard Murdey: That blind hump where the EVF would go is really freaking me out.
Yes, exactly. It's just wrong.
A superzoom without an EVF is an abomination. Really. Look that word up. Here:
mostlyboringphotog: F-stop is the equivalent aperture. It allows the convenience of same exposure across the FL and the sensor size (4x5, 120, 135, DX, CX, etc). The young guns want to change "equivalent exposure" to mean "total light" and this old timer is saying "not so fast" and for this I get told pejoratively that I am a "denialist" sometimes with the implication that I'm being so "willfully ignorant". As if I'm the only one that is filling up the 150 posts...
Well, this old timer will happily change my mind and that's more than I can say for the "Equivalence". If I change my sensor size more often than the f-stop, then yea, put the "total light" equivalent f-stop on the lens barrel.
I would like to second GBs request that you start a thread about this in the Photographic Science and Technology forum (or anywhere else, really). You know, for the sake of educating us. Surely a worthwhile endeavour wouldn't you say?
Polytropia: Lets be honest about what this, in fact, is: a marketing ploy only. If the purpose of thinking about "equivalence" is to help you make a buying decision about what sort of camera to get, and all the terminology of the approach is written such that it relates everything to one particular format (24x36mm, 135F), then clearly the not-so-subliminal message here is that the one format that is called "full-frame" is "better". This is supported by lies such as "you can't try to flood a small sensor with extra light in order to get better images, because it'll just overexpose" (page 4, near the bottom). Small compared to what? Why, the better format of course!
DPReview (owned by Amazon) prefers that you purchase more expensive, 135F gear from them because they make more profit when you do so. They have a conflict of interest. They are motivated to perpetuate the myth that the only "full-frame" format is 135F even though all the other ones have full lines of native lenses available.
"then clearly the not-so-subliminal message here is that the one format that is called "full-frame" is 'better'"
I don't own a FF digital camera. I don't even own an APS-C camera. The largest format I've thus far ventured into is mFT. Yet somehow I don't come away from learning about equivalence with the impression that it is pushing a FF superiority agenda. I don't really understand how you can unless you've got a preexisting complex of your own.
What I _have_ taken away from all my learning about equivalence is the ability to think and/or speak in mFT equivalent terms, or 1"-type equivalent terms, or even 1/1.7" equivalent terms (since calculating crop factors with respect to formats other than FF is trivially easy: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/showthread.php?t=11338 ). In other words once you understand the principles involved there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why you have to remain tethered to FF equivalence in particular.
It's all so endlessly elegant ;)
dobbre: I haven't read through all comments so maybe somebody adressed this already but when I opened review yesterday at the top of the page right bellow photo of fz1000 there was sentence that preview is base on production fz1000 running firmware v0.3. Today there is written the same but firmware is v1.0.There is huge difference in that and in our way of looking at this review as a relevant decision factor. Maybe Jeff Keller could confirm does all of the facts stated in this review reflects v1.0 model performance or part of the review is based on v0.3 model?Thank you!Regards, Ilija
Regardless v0.3 was obviously close to a production quality firmware and I can guarantee you that jumps from "early" version numbers to 1.0 releases happen all the time without our knowledge.
There are no rules when it comes to how much or how quickly pre-production firmware version numbers should be incremented before final release. If you're close to production quality by v0.3, so be it. No need to play silly numbers games on your way to a v1.0 designation if you don't want to.
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.
No, but I think you missed the article on equivalence.
Paul Fussell: Does anyone know if there a telephoto conversion lens coming out for the FZ1000? Something similar to the DMW-LT55 1.7x lens for the FZ200?
There are no lens housing threads for a lens adapter. The best you can hope for is some sort of clamp-on after market solution for use with an existing TC.
rfsIII: Thanks for legitimizing one man's crackpot theory. You have set photographic understanding back by 150 years and made life harder for photography teachers everywhere.What you guys are ignoring is that f-stop also controls overall performance of the lens. Most lenses are sharpest at their middle apertures—there's no "equivalence" for that law of optical engineering. The image from a cropped sensor camera is not going to be as sharp across the frame at f/2.8 as one from a large-sensor camera is at f/5.6.
The thing is that if you actually properly understood equivalence, its domain of applicability, how it should and should not factor into both the practice of photography itself and the issue of relative performance across formats, you really wouldn't be carrying on the way you are.
You've either misinterpreted something, brought along some erroneous assumptions, or are simply stuck in your ways.