On the third slide there, would it be possible to extend the graphs showing essentially what would be a crop? The area of the sensor shrinks and the "reach" increases. Perhaps with a dotted line in the same color? I think this would really help people understand that a camera is not incapable of "reaching" detail past it's maximum focal range.
RPJG: "offering the attractive option of a 25-49mm equivalent F1.3 lens (F2.5 equivalent in full frame terms)."
When describing equivalence for f numbers, I wish you'd separate out the two separate factors, i.e. exposure equivalence and DoF equivalence.
The more iso invariant cameras become (which they are increasingly achieving), the dumber and dumber it is to refer to fstop without context of how wide a sensor the lens overs.
"Exposure" is a film concept that needs to evolve to the digital world where ISO is just a parameter you can pick AFTER shooting in a lot of ways.
Babka08: 24-600, people. And a big sensor exposing it. What do you expect?
handholding 600mm equiv is crazy. At least let me steady it on my face.
Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.
Weia: Interesting. that '1000 times less light than on earth' is something one doesn't realise.
It's also 10 years old without regular servicing and 3 billion miles on the odometer ;)
MrLynn: Color me somewhat disappointed. I use my Rebel T2i/Tamron 18-270mm combination a lot in the canoe and walking about, often for birds, and last fall was all set to spring for a Canon SX60 (better EVF than the SX50, but worse IQ reviews). Then I saw an FX1000 at Best Buy and loved its bright EVF and the idea of the larger sensor. But it wasn't a 'superzoom'.
When I heard that the FZ300 was imminent, I hoped that it would expand the well-reviewed FZ200's zoom, keep Leica optics, and maybe even increase sensor size. But that didn't happen.
I might still get an FZ200 when the price comes down. My 270mm with the SLR's sensor is close to 400mm 35mm-equivalent, so 600mm equivalent should gain me a little, maybe enough, as it's hard to steady the camera when the canoe's bobbing.
Still, I wish the new FZ300 were 900mm or so, even at the cost of losing the f2.8 aperture at the long end. But I suppose Panasonic didn't want to tread on the heels of the indifferently-reviewed FZ70.
If they say they go to 2000mm, that has nothing to do with reach. A single pixel at 10,000mm is actually pretty crappy reach. Reach is a figure of a diffraction free resolution at a given focal length. Equivalent focal length isn't everything.
The FZ300 is really a 108mm lens. You call it 600 because you're equivalence it. To do that you also need to equivalence the fact that 12mp isn't much detail by today's standards and 1/2.33" sensors don't cover much area.
Your T2i with a F6 270mm lens HAS MORE REACH THAN AN FZ300!
A LOT more.
The whites look much closer to daylight in the high ISO night shots compared to the regular 810. They remind me of the A7s. I threw that in the comparison and it's close, but the 810A is even better.
FZ1000 costs similar money to teh 150-600 (which opens only to f6.3 at 600mm). I was trying to highlight the capabilities of each option for you comparatively if all you cared about was reach. You make some big assumptions comparing across cameras like that but diffraction at a focal length is only related to physical aperture (not fstop directly) and pixel pitch so it makes a decent measuring stick.
I'm not saying the 150-600 meets ayn size requirements but it's cost considering you can use it with your existing camera is not comparatively out of range. If you're not willing to carry around a bigger piece of glass than the zoom going to 270mm APS-C you already have you're not going to get noticeably more reach.
So, effective light per pixel math for you assuming all the sensor pixels are equally sensitive per unit area and the lenses are all equally sharp and your target fills less than 10% of your APS-C frame:focal length equiv * sqrt(resolution) / f-stop * cropT2i/270mm (270*1.6*sqrt18)/(1.6*6.3) = 182
FZ200/FZ300: (600*sqrt12)/(2.8*5.6) = 133FZ70: (1200*sqrt16)/(5.9*5.6) = 145FZ1000: (400*sqrt20)/(4*2.7)= 166T6 + existing lens: 270*sqrt24/6.3 = 210T2i+150-600 = 600*sqrt18/6.3 = 404
So I'd say best bang for your buck is go get a 150-600
All this fuss about the sensor... it occured to me if you want to do 16:9 4K from 4:3 ratio your minimum resolution is 3840x2880 or 11mp. If you use something like a 12mp sensor for 4K (Example A7s), you can get away without pixel binning and cropping (toss a few pixels here and there for digital stabilization).
Astrotripper: So, I guess this is the A7000 everyone was waiting for :)
You imaginarily named it the A7000. I described the imaginary features of your imaginary camera.
ThePhilips: ... If the sensor is not the same (very likely) then I think the Panasonic should sue the DPR for slander, libel and defamation. Just saying.
Because DPR might well have just killed the FZ300 launch by claiming that the sensor is the same old one. Such rumors, once they are out there, are impossible to deal with.
And to teach DPR a lesson that when you are #1 site, with the largest audience, one has to choose the words carefully.
One of my favorite things about DPR is responses like this. Thank you!
vhlemos: I think it´s time to focus on bigger sensors. If Panasonic is trying to lead between camera's manufacturers. This is the next step.
P&S = cell phone.
It focuses DX lenses as fast as a D7200 using their full field of view?
mosc: What's this camera's biggest drawback? To me it's the thought of a similarly priced APS-C version of the A7Rm2 which will focus EF-S/DX glass and match it's 4K/IBIS headline features. Sony's recent 1" sensor releases also have sensor tech that seem already well ahead of what will likely be the best m43 has to offer for years to come.
I have to say I find the ample grip, viewfinder, and especially fully articulated screen in the rangefinder layout all very close to ideal. Hard to fault panasonic of late on the physical layouts of their cameras like the LX100, G7, and GX8.
Makes me hope an LX100m2 is close behind featuring the GX8's sensor, the LX100's lens, and some other polish without matching the GX8's large $1,200 pricetag.
Well in a way panasonic's leadership on video has saved m43 from the inevitable pigeon hole of needing to be smaller than APS-C systems to justify it's existence while simultaneously needing to meet their image quality to justify their price. Sony introducing features like 4K, IBIS, and focusing of third party lenses (there are plenty of DX lenses at the focal lengths you mention for example) really puts m43 back into it's main difference as "a smaller alternative". The GX8 is not smaller than an NX500 or A6000 and it just seems like without being well ahead on video and lenses that panasonic/olympus are going to start feeling that squeeze.
I do think products like the LX100 though are somewhat different since they can balance their lens and sensor together competing against fixed APS-C or 1" cameras on similar footprint and physical aperture even if they all have different sized sensors in the back.
bolador: I Had a FZ200 and then a D90 and a D7200.. with a 70-300 f4.5-5.6mm lens that costs the same as the new FZ200 you don't have the same reach nor light/noise. Or may be just about at 3x price and 4x weight using ISO 400 f/2.8 vs ISO1600 f/5.6 I the DSLR.at the tele end FZ is hard, heavy and expensive to beat. Yes a better, same size sensor would be helpful. . But still Panasonic camera is full no features an controls that coolpixs don't want to provide. ..
FZ200 at ISO 400 doesn't look better than say an A6000 at ISO1600 imho. I'd pick the APS-C at ISO1600 honestly. The APS-C lens will likely be a bit sharper before diffraction limit too.
They did release the FZ1000 a while back, also with 4K. Maybe you missed it? 400mm f4 1" is very similar to 600mm f2.8 1/2.33" too in capabilities as well on the pixel level arc resolution front.
If you already have an APS-C DSLR it seems crazy to buy something like the FZ300 for purposes of telephoto reach. The FZ300 is more general purpose but if telephoto is what's lacking there are lots of cheap lenses that go to 300 on any APS-C format. A little cropping down to 12mp and you will still have more reach than the FZ300 along with more light.
What's this camera's biggest drawback? To me it's the thought of a similarly priced APS-C version of the A7Rm2 which will focus EF-S/DX glass and match it's 4K/IBIS headline features. Sony's recent 1" sensor releases also have sensor tech that seem already well ahead of what will likely be the best m43 has to offer for years to come.
they not bundling the little flash with it anymore?