UHD cell phone screens need some more pixels for video chat apparently?
Paul Kersey Photography: This camera makes m43 pricing look like a bargain.
Oh, got it. Straight up trolling. Sorry, I thought for a second you actually wanted to make a point rather than laugh at people who do.
forpetessake: "In terms of noise, the FZ1000 produces clean images up to ISO 800. You start to see some detail loss at ISO 1600 and 3200, but you'll only notice when viewing photos at or near 100% magnification."
It's quite a stretch of reality. The noise and heavy noise reduction is already visible at the base ISO in jpegs. The high ISOs look poor even at the screen size. Boost some contrast, clarity, saturation (default look is quite weak), pull some shadows and even the base ISO becomes barely usable even at screen sizes.
I think 1/2.33" sensors are perfectly usable full resolution at base ISO let alone this. It has some ISO room. It's not a huge sensor but criticizing it's base ISO noise is... a little much.
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).
RX10 is so much brigther at 200mm than the FZ1000 that you are not doing it justice without also factoring in that the RX10 can crop more and get away with it. Equivalent aperture tells us that's about a tossup all way to 300mm. Really the FZ1000's tele advantage is strictly 300-400mm and for that it's slower from basically 28mm to 200mm. If you use a lot of variable focal lenghs other than 25mm and 400mm, you are better off with the RX10's lens. To me, the FZ1000 has more bells and whistles than the RX10 but as far as which lens is better, it's the RX10.
I'd still buy the FZ1000 over the RX10. It's cheaper and does 4K video. RX10 is pretty hard to argue with at $999 though.
I did find this:http://www.amazon.com/OM-D-E-M10-Double-Zoom-DZKIT-SLV/dp/B00I2KPLZY/
Which has a viewfinder and covers 28mm - 300mm. Not exactly 25-400 but close. It's also more expensive and the FZ1000 will surely drop in price before it goes off the market while I can't imagine that combo getting much cheaper in the next year. Is there a real optical advantage to that package over this 1" superzoom? Well, the 1" is a stop faster which really helps make up for the crop difference. 4/3rds sensors aren't huge themselves. I'd say it's pretty comparable.
There aren't many 4/3rds lenses that cover 25-400. Olympus has a 18-180 10x zoom, but in 4/3rds terms this lens is 12.5 to 200, 16x. The wide ends of these are completely different. I'm not one to be satisfied with 36mm at the wide end. So then you're already out $500 and you need ANOTHER lens that covers something wider... and you can't find one for $400. And we still haven't actually found a body yet. No, this is very competitive with 4/3rds pricing. 4/3rds glass is not cheap.
And what's the cheapest current model 4/3rds body that has a viewfinder anyway? The $700 om10? This is a $900 body with a lens 4/3rds can't match in a single package that has a viewfinder.
And all that's pretending like 4K video isn't a selling point on this camera. If it is, there is no equivalently priced competition, not even close.
Just another Canon shooter: Right - because the main problem my smartphone camera has is missing focus.
Lars, Richard, can you go one step further on that explanation? I understand why a 1/2.33" sensor with a 100mm equivalent lens has to do some hunting but some of these phone sensors are super wide (like 24mm) and super tiny (like 1/3.0"). It seems like they don't need to care much about focal point because their depth of field is so huge to begin with. Focusing 10 feet away f2.4 1/3.0" 24mm I get a depth of field covering approximately 1 foot from the camera to infinity. Did I do my math wrong? Unless the subject is super close (like within a foot), why does the thing even bother focusing?
EduardoKleinFichtner: Why do not put the 'equivalence' in reviews?????
It's really a lens graph, not a camera graph.Of course you knew that.
Here's another truth people like to spit out that's only half true:
Exposure depends on f-stop, not aperture size (or equivalent aperture f-stop). True, BUT:
Exposure capability varies with sensor size. ISO ranges vary with sensor size. Sensitivity varies with sensor size. Because of THESE, the question of:
"How much light does my light meter need to read in order to get this camera to reasonably expose this shot?"
Depends on aperture diameter (or equivalent f-stop), NOT the lens f-stop alone.
Exposure is a means to an end. And that end is more about light gathering than anything else. The size of the aperture matters more than the format at which it's focusing that light down on.
Those graphs help immensely. It's also the only place I know of to really see how quickly these variable aperture lenses fall off.
A particular thank you for making the focal length a logarithmic scale.
Weide: The Text contains significant Errors. Of course the total amount of light is in fact the same at 50mm/f2 MFT and 100mm/f2 FF, because the distance from the image plane to the lens plane is now different (otherwise the image would be out of focus). Therefore, the term f-stop was introduced!! With the same aperture number, regardless of the focal length gets the same amount of light to the Sensor(section).
Sorry for my bad english
*cough* 4 times *cough*
vroger1: OK- I "feel" it's coming- a Lumix super-duper zoom- let's say 24 through 1000 mm + together with a 2.8 aperture throughout the range and a larger sensor than the fz200 which has given me (as I have said in the past) so much pleasure.
To vroger1's point, if you change design more thoroughly, there are different optical tricks you can do to get apparent aperture down in lens design without increasing the largest aperture dimension. A mirror lens, for example. Or a cassegrain.
well it's pretty clear f31 equiv for these sensors is already diffraction limited. Equivalent aperture is more important here for understanding diffraction because it relates to the physical aperture size. If we hold to the f22 number that's thrown around in regards to consumer lens diffraction and you limit yourself to a reasonable aperture size for hold of say 50mm, that's a range of 1100mm at an aperture of f4 for a 1/2.33" sensor. In other words, I don't think 1000mm f2.8 is doable but 1000mm f4 should be doable, and should not be diffraction limited.
It would be a pretty large bridge camera though and it's image quality wouldn't be that impressive with just a 1/2.33" sensor... but it wouldn't have much competition at the usable 1000mm point.
FZ1000 cropped to 1000mm (2.5x crop) is similar to that dimension wise except with only 3.2mp of resolution compared to a 16mp 1/2.33"
mosc: Here's a "real" example of equivalent aperture and it's purpose for those who are having trouble. This camera calls itself 1248mm at the telephoto end, but how physically large is the aperture? If it's a full frame, we can use the f5.6 quoted and we get a physical aperture size of 1248/5.6 = 222.9 mm. Of course this camera doesn't have an aperture anywhere near that size (that's almost 9 inches, as wide as a car tire). If you want to know it's aperture size, you can use the equivalent aperture. Equivalent aperture is aperture times crop, or 5.6x5.6 in this case. A diffraction happy f31. This is a "real" number though because now we know how big the physical aperture of this camera is. It's 1248/31, or 40mm.
well forgive the odd analogy I just think it helps visualize how big the aperture is to get f5.6 equivalent at that absurdly long a focal distance.
9" tire width is fairly average these days. More than your typical economy car, less than a sports car or larger truck/suv.
Here's a "real" example of equivalent aperture and it's purpose for those who are having trouble. This camera calls itself 1248mm at the telephoto end, but how physically large is the aperture? If it's a full frame, we can use the f5.6 quoted and we get a physical aperture size of 1248/5.6 = 222.9 mm. Of course this camera doesn't have an aperture anywhere near that size (that's almost 9 inches, as wide as a car tire). If you want to know it's aperture size, you can use the equivalent aperture. Equivalent aperture is aperture times crop, or 5.6x5.6 in this case. A diffraction happy f31. This is a "real" number though because now we know how big the physical aperture of this camera is. It's 1248/31, or 40mm.
Look, I really think this can help after reading over 1000 comments:
Equivalent aperture is talking about the physical aperture dimension. The size of the aperture. Not as a ratio (which is what f-stop is), but as a physical dimension. It's saying that on whatever format you want to shoot on, a lens with these specs will have the same physical aperture size.
That physical aperture size is paramount to understanding the sensitivity and focal behavior of the lens. The f-stop is not. The f-stop for a camera gets into the sensor size. With a given aperture size, the f-stop will be smaller the smaller the sensor gets and larger the larger the sensor gets. Same physical aperture. f2 on 4/3rds has the same physical aperture size as f4 on full frame. It's exactly 1/4 the full frame focal length in either case.
That's not to say SNR and light intensity don't have other factors, just that they don't matter as much.
In other words Aperture Size = Aperture Size = Aperture Size.
roguerye: weather sealing? Since I'm outdoors in the elements all the time..Ocean, river, rain, snow, dust, wind? One hit of bad elements and a lot of cameras are toast/not fun. Since I shoot in 24P/95% of the time and like WIDE, wouldn't the RX-10 be best with clean hdmi out, weather sealing, 24mm wide and headphone jack vs taking a 37mm wide 4k fz-1000 image in 30P only?
It's not weather sealed. The zoom clearly telescopes taking in air. This rumor needs to end.
So Nikon:1) Price the V3 at $499 with this kit lens and no viewfinder2) Make a powerzoom that covers at least 9-36mm, no slower than f2.8, and no more expensive than $4993) Make a camera bundle that offers a body with a viewfinder, the lens from #2, and costs <$1000
There, I fixed your system for you.
Summi Luchs: Good article, but it does not clarify a common misunderstanding of "equivalent aperture", seen in many postings. The article nicely shows the equivalence regarding focal length, DOF, gathered light etc.. But what is frequently misunderstood is that f/1.8 leads to the same exposure time regardless of sensor size for the same scence, light and ISO setting. Some people assume that an "equivalent" aperture of f3.6 (in this example for a f/1.8 MFT vs. full frame) also would lead to a longer exposure and so is not usable in low light. You can extrapolate this from the article, but for beginners it would be nice to add a simple summary that clarifies the practical aspects.
Glad I could help.