Miki Nemeth: Very intersting conclusion. At the moment (9 Dec 2014) the RX10 is 50 EUR cheaper than the FZ1000. The RX10 in the meantime received a new firmware with XAVC-S. The built-in ND filter, the professional-grade (parfocal) zoom lens, excellent XAVC-S codec, professional weather sealed body, cheaper price today makes my decision much harder. My problem with 4K is that to exploit its (great) advantages it requires a huge amount of disk space, and more importantly an enormous amount of post processing time. Decent FullHD video footage is all I'd need. Image stabilization efficiency is another big question. Hmm.
"Are you sure about this 24mm to 37mm crop of the LX100? The end results are a 2.4x crop in 4K video mode compared to.... in stills mode it is a 2.2x crop."
Yeah, that is why it is ONLY 37mm.... and not 40 or 42mm, you see.
If you want a little processing power inside your camera, you need to move out of Panasonic and into a Samsung NX1. That one does not do any image cropping or other low-CPU capability trickery.
ShatteredSky: What if I want to use that tilting screen for non-selfie shots? Am I cool than? One of my gripes is that the LX100 does not come with a tilting screen ...
If you do not want to selfie, than just don't. Childishly easy ...
Please, do take ALL the "selfies" you want of yourself, see if I care.
But please.... PLUEEEEESE.... do not expect US to watch YOU in these shots to no end. :-))
WetCoast: 1" sensor, please. No more 2/3", 1/1.7" or 1/2.3"... :)
No clue what the sensor inside this one is as far its size is concerned -- it is apparently a closely guarded secret. You can see 101 assorted specs on this camera here -- but the size of its sensor. Suspicious....
avicenanw: Both are great bridge cameras. If you are more into photos, the RX10 is for you, and if you are more into videos, the FZ1000 is for you with its 4K video capability. I would go for the RX10 because I am more into photos. The RX10 has sturdier build with metal (magnesium) chassis (vs the plastic FZ1000) , is dust and moisture resistant, have constant f2.8 aperture across its zoom range, have built-in ND filter, and a headphone jack for monitoring sound when I occasionally go into video mode. The RX10 also have better out of camera jpegs in case you prefer not to do post processing.
@ XVOYAGERX: Since when is a cheap plastic camera body "very well built?"
Whether you like it or no, the better overall build quality, pricier cameras and made out of metal alloys, and the lower echelon, cheaper cameras and made out of plastic. Or, as you like to say it, out of "Poly Carbonite."
Birdy1970: Great cam.but not compact...
What are YOU, Weird Named One, the Mighty Inquisition?
These whatyoumacallit "upper entry level" (ha-ha-ha-ha) DSLR cameras are getting mighty pricey as of late.
teddoman: Very curious to hear how this cameraphone is doing in France Germany and UK right now.
In Germany, it is not well liked. Check out a detailed review or two on it on eoshd.com. ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS for THIS? What is Pana smoking?
Karl Summers: Ouch! Burned by flare! Roll out the 760s!
Great bit of smart sarcasm there, Karl!
Great that they announced this issue already.
Anyone here remembers how Fujifilm for almost a year denied the fact that there were halos and flares galore with their then pricey X-S1?Alas, the Fuji X-S1 is now gone, discontinued. And there is no X-S2 to replace it, either.
munro harrap: Both fail. I have had to return an RX10 for an obvious reason-when you film it insists in recording all focussing and zooming sounds to your footage. Optically the lens is good despite very heavy distortion at 24mm that can only be corrected in software-easily more than 5% barrel. As you get to 200, at f2.8 the one I had was very sharp in the centre, but only a narrow circle in the centre beyond which the fall off was rapid- think adjacent trees in a row of trees equidistant from camera, or a line of people. Even in good light you need that f2.8 but it is of limited use given most of the picture is at a lower resolution.
This is ALL deliberate of course since the zoom for size is underdesigned: at 24mm it certainly does not cover the sensor. That said the Leitz lens on the Panasonic is far worse, and I do mean a LOT worse. So wait for the next models and curse the people who lead you up the garden path to nowhere but frustration
Lumix FZ1000 "Truth in Lensing Specs" disclosure:
Camera's WA is at 25mm -- in still picture mode, but only in some of the possible aspect ratios.
In 1080p video mode, it is at 27mm (equivalent).
Finally in 4K videeo mode, it is at 37mm (equivalent). So, at 37mm, that is not even a proper WIDE angle.
You must shoot video with this camera in 4K UHD resolution only, otherwise you are recording HD video in the ages old, not too desirable, really low bitrate AVCHD codec, a coeec that seemingly refuses t die. Just ask Panasonic and Sony.
So, would you want to spend $900 on a camera that has a fixed lens that starts at only 37mm (equivalent) when shooting video? Some might, others will not.
Joe Tam: I read the FZ-1000 at 300mm+ becomes fuzzy. Can anyone confirm if this is true. I am planning on getting this camera for long lens shots and want to avoid the kind of softness I get on my 100-300mm Panasonic at the long end. Thanks.
There are plenty of test footage clips when the camera is being zoomed through 16x and 32x ange, check them out on You Tube and if you really have to, on Vimeo.
Mike, U R right about the Sony, however keep this fact in mind. Sony is now protecting their brand new 4K camcorder, the USD $8,000 NXCAM PXW-FS7, nem igaz?
It is so new, even B&H does not have them in stock, and the Sony servo zoom lens 28-135mm/F4 is months behind schedule as well.
So, they do have 4K video in a camera, just not for $1,000 or $2,000, but for $8,000.
However, unless the A7S Mark II will be recording 4K internally in at least XAVC S quality, Sony is going to be sorry and losing 4K biz to others. Eight thousand dollars or not.
Raintitan: I don't understand what people expect. These cameras are not for the typical. DPReview visitor, they are for people who want a little more or something other than a cell phone.
If the technology isn't fresh, it is because this segment is dying and in order to keep making money the manufacturers need to milk what they can from this to fund initiatives in new markets.
You forgot to add the 1/2.3-inch size sensor. I suppose that is a great feature to have, too?
First Canon is announcing these useless garbage-cams, and now Pana, too? Man, what this world is coming to? ;-))
Wow, why is Canon still making these horrid, horrid little cameras? And just what is "new" in these ones now, I wonder? Seems to me to be the same old same old.
Miki, I guess you are saying that any manufacturer that builds better and more robust cameras than the competition does s stupid?
samfan: T5.0-8.9 doesn't sound impressive, at least in the lower range (and I doubt it's gonna be T/5 until 999mm). How do cine people deal with bad speed in low light? I get it that with 1080p it's not such an issue compared to 36 MPx prints, but with 4k I guess things start getting noisy.
Q: "Why isn't Canon making a 1000mm t/2.2 lens and selling it for $800?"
An excellent question from the looks of it. Let me venture a guess then for the answer: "because Sony had beaten them to it?"
Roman22: Wow so much hate for this camera and for Canon it's quite pathetic. I wonder how many here have actually used a Canon C100? This upgrade addresses the main concerns users were having with the camera IMO - poor EVF, lack of slow mo. Do i wish it had more? Ofcourse I do but realistically Canon is not going to cannibalise their higher end cameras by giving us 4K, Raw blah blah. The fact is this camera will be a joy to use, produce a clean 1080p image without too much post work or taking up hard drive space and no need to mess with adaptors. I can also see the AF being really useful for run and gun and steadicam/gimbal work. I'm gonna wait until i can see some images from this camera and the FS7. However the FS7 will be almost £3k more expensive in the UK so not exactly comparable.
Canon's C100 2nd Feeble Attempt is a loser-cam right out of the gate. After all, who would be desperate enough to shoot 1080-line HD video today in the 2160-line UHD 4K era, or record in horrid 24Mbit/sec AVCHD codec video to SD cards, or output 8-bit low quality video via the consumer interface HDMI, and so on. And spend $5,500 for the dubious privilege of doing so. Would you, really?
jadot: Not particularly clever commenting on what looks tho be an amazing digital video camera.Loads of new features here and all people can whine about it "No 4K" and EVF woes!You have no idea. Really.
"You have no idea. Really."
Yes -- you are indeed clueless.
Another laugh-fest class feeble opening from Has-Been Giant Canon. This camera with its AVCHD codec, slow frame rates, low-end 8-bit color quality, HD-only resolution, and HDMI jack is a stark reminder how amazingly Sony had stolen the wind out of Canon's sail, as well as out of just about everyone else's sail.
The $8,000, 4K capable Sony PXW-FS7 D-film camera is 12x the camera than this new" Canon wannabe. This thing is old and limping already, and it is not even scheduled to ship until years end.