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.
hrt: With a 400mm equivalent, I wonder how the camera can prevent shakes and how the sensor can manage noise at lighter ISO's.If I have to carry a tripod for this camera, it wouldn't make so much sense to pay extra dollars, as these kinds of cameras would be my travel buddy.
Where have you been? IS systems are so effective these days that you can shoot at 1200mm EFLs at 1/125s, and sometimes even below.
No-one is saying that you need to be always thinking about equivalence when you're out in the field. No-one is saying that you need to forget about the good old exposure triangle, or stop teaching it. Where does this silly notion even come from? Such knowledge is merely a subset within a greater context. They can be taught together, and prioritized where appropriate, and doing so will very likely result in the next generation of photographers not being so hopelessly confused about relative performance across formats.
mislav: I don't care
The A7s traded away DR at low ISO in order to realize its high ISO advantage. And that advantage isn't even really big; 1 stop at the most and only beyond ISO1600. You can tune any sensor to behave in a similar way regardless of the pixel count. But you wouldn't, because who wants the IQ sweet spot of their camera compromised in such a way? Who wants to lose all that detail resolution? Certainly not everybody.
Once again, every camera is a compromise, and the A7s is no exception. And no free lunch either.
munro harrap: If Dpreview wishes to avoid prosecution in the UK under the Trades Descriptions Act will it please STOP telling punters this and others like it is a 1" sensor. It is NOT.I get a little tired of reading unprofessional lies whose intention is to deceive people into buying or believing anything, it so boring
And anyone who understands fractions will think a 4/3" sensor gets them 1.33 inches, or a 2/3" sensor gets them 0.66 inches or a 1/2.3" sensor gets them 0.43 inches. So all the "lies" are essentially the same. That's the industry standard, and has been since the dawn of digital photography.
But by all means continue to rage against it if that sort of thing floats your boat ;)
As was posted further down:
"The inch-based image sensor format originated in the 1950s and stems from the physical size of the vidicon tube sensor used in cameras at that time. The outside diameter of the vidicon tube was equal to 1” and the imaging area of the tube was 16mm diagonal. The sensor was commonly referred to as a 1” sensor and shortly thereafter it was commonly known that a 1” sensor had an imaging diagonal of 16mm."
So the industry DOES have a consistent format. And however much some people hate it, it's not going to go away any time soon.
But aside from that, my main point of contention with munro is that he is throwing accusations at dpreview for lying when what they are actually doing is simply embracing the industry standard but simultaneously educating consumers about how big (or small, if you prefer) all these sensors really are.
Settle down. In the body of this review it is referred to as a 1"-type sensor (which is standard industry terminology), and the actual physical dimensions are provided too. So rather than lying, dpreview are actually educating. If you bother to pay attention that is.
Besides, I wonder if what this sort of complaint is really all about is an emotional reaction to a perceived diminishment of "large"-sensor pride...
120 to 35: To DPR: Please include the actual sensor dimensions. 1" or a fraction of an inch is not an actual measurement.
In other words, the marketing gurus have been getting up to mischief again.
Reporting both is the best compromise I think. It avoids the confusion that would ensue by rejecting an industry standard and simultaneously educates the consumer.
Any change would ultimately have to filter down from the manufacturers themselves.
They always do, and this review is no exception. Full specs are on page 2.
FRANCISCO ARAGAO: samsung, oh samsung, 20 MP crammed in a 28.5 mm² tiny sensor??
I understand exactly what you are saying. But it has nothing to do with whether or not higher megapixel counts are to the detriment of IQ when all other things are equal. That's all I set out to discuss, and that's where this exchange began.
"Comparing the 5.6um pixel sensor using a picture that obviously looks enlarged at more than 100% is a joke... And you want to ignore that the 1.75um is worse than the 2.2um apparently..."
1) you obviously didn't understand the paper2) you are, for whatever reason, neglecting to examine the wealth of additional evidence that I just put at your feet
With respect to #2 in particular, why?
This is an opportunity for you to grow your technical knowledge of photography. Really. It's not really your fault that you became attached to a pervasive myth because, well, its pervasive. But what you do with the remedial information and perspective is indeed YOUR choice.
"I do not care comparing these two sensors with two prints of the same size."
In other words, you don't care to remain within the context of the comment of mine that you initially responded to (which specified normalized print/display sizes) or the overarching point of this discussion. So why bother?
You missed the point of that comparison. It wasn't between the the 2MP sensor and the 3MP sensor, it was between both of the small pixel sensors and the large pixel sensor.
If you want to ignore the bulk of the paper and draw your conclusions based on some tiny crops instead, fine. But don't then pretend that you're actually making a genuine effort to get to the bottom of this for yourself. You should be looking at the trend; the evidence as a whole, and not isolated inconsistencies.
You wrote: "They should have taken the picture closer to the subject with the 5.6um pixel sensor so that a given area of the subject is covered by the same number of pixels..."
No. You keep trying to make your case based on per-pixel performance. But do you really not understand how normalizing the display/print resolution is important for evaluating the IQ equation as it relates to real-world usage scenarios?
1) I'm not saying that there is necessarily always a benefit to cramming more megapixels into a small sensor. I am saying that given equivalent technology and display/print sizes, doing so is basically NEVER to the detriment of IQ, at ANY ISO.
2) Smaller pixels (again, given equivalent technology and print/display sizes) DO NOT EQUAL less dynamic range. It's important to understand the difference between what goes on at the per-pixel level and what goes on at the aggregate image level when print/display sizes are normalized.
Here's a good reference for you: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=706255
You don't need to just take some random forum posters word for it of course. There is a wealth of reference material there that you can peruse for yourself.
But even in that worst-case scenario where pixel size is decreased without new technology, we're still only talking about _pixel-level_ performance degradation, and not the degradation of IQ at the aggregate image level when display/print sizes are equalized.
The bottom line is that rather than there simply being a push for smaller pixels, there is a push for smaller BETTER pixels. Some people would essentially have us believe that some manufacturers are actually pushing things backwards with respect to IQ but this is nonsense. Here is a small window into the process, and the thinking: http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2013%20Workshop/2013%20Papers/01-4_080-Tian-paper.pdf
So once again I say this: people need to stop worrying about high pixel counts as if it's somehow all very tragic, because it's not.