Celsus: At what focal length does stabilization without a viewfinder start to drop off in effectiveness? I remember with the FZ200, 600mm was about the absolute limit of effective stabilization but that was with using a viewfinder. Handholding it was impossible. Same with the SX50 HS, 1000mm was shaky as heck handholding and even with the viewfinder it was very difficult to keep steady at those lengths. So how is using the high end of the tele zoom range on the G3X without a viewfinder?
At Celsus Huh?1200mm at 1/100 shutter is pretty easy with SX50, IMHO.That's using the LCD.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3869882
One needs some better technique in handholding cameras.I do ' twist' the camera , to obtain better stability, and my eyes can still see the LCD about 7" away. If eyesight limits one to arms length, then that's a different story.
Francis Carver: "Panasonic announced the first-ever 20MP Micro Four Thirds camera."
Product announcements are usually not reviews. Also, since we have had cameras with app. 20MP sensors for seemingly ions, and including all sorts of form factors and size sensors to boot -- why is it a "big deal" if Panasonic now is announcing one such camera with the same pixel density sensor?
Whereas I do not wish to rain on anyone's parade, summertime is usually not the time to get overly excited about new camera products and announcements about them. Let's hope this autumn and winter will bring a more palatable crop of them to fruition.
Um, because after years of the 12MP sensor, they finally moved up to 16MP. That was years ago, and now, they finally moved up to 20MP.
First time any micro 4/3 had this much resolution. Panasonic was first to do it. If Olympus came out with it first, then they would be mentioned. But I don't think they ever made a sensor, so they wait, whereas Panasonic does make their own sensors. Not saying it's their sensor in this new camera, but not an impossibility.
This is the best the GH4 can do, for a moon shot ?I think todays superzoom can easily outperform this...showing more detail..perhaps do to better optics, and less need to crop. Plus no need for tripod, with their superior O.I.S. Surely I don't miss my GH2 with 45 to 200mm lens.
mosc: the lens comparison isn't working for me here...
mpgxsvcd: Great now I can get cell phone quality pictures from 1-2 miles away. I honestly never understood the allure of these super zoom cameras. When zoomed all the way in atmospheric conditions start to become the biggest factor. Really how often do you need to take a picture of something that you can’t see with your naked eye?
Just look at the quality all of these cameras produce. Yup the subject fills the frame but there is no detail at all. Everything is mush because of poor optics and diffraction limitations.
I really wish they would just stick with 25x or less instead of the ridiculous 80x+ that these cameras do.
My 8 inch telescope is F4.0 but they can only get 800mm focal length with it. How can you expect these super small sensor cameras to do the job better than a large diameter telescope can?
This category is just a marketing gimmick. The sample images that Dpreview was able to take are terrible. It is impossible to take a decent picture at 2000mm with these cameras.
Have you seen any real photo's from experienced users of these small sensor superzooms? They have GREAT O.I.S. and sharp lenses:
thanks Ruth !
Neither is the composition...but thats another story.Why f8?
Bad choice,IMHO.These small sensored camera's have huge DOF compared to D-SLR (APS-C ) and FF sensors. You didn't need any more DOF, and shutter speeds would of been faster if bigger aperture was chosen.
Use lowest aperture possible.Avoid auto mode.Takes a bit of time to learn a camera.Go to Nikon Coolpix Forum, and see the results some folk are getting...clearly much better than yours.
Sometimes, It's the photographer and not the camera
Have a nice day
Cane: I love to see all the old people grab for their oxygen masks when a camera is released without a viewfinder.
It's the older crowd, and those who lost their near sighted ness, that really need a EVF. These folk have to hold camera at arms length, to see the LCD, but that far away, and the glare from the sun, as well as lack of stability, make it difficult for them.....but the younger crowd can hold camera about 5 to 7 inches away, avoid sun glare, and get more stable photos. I take plenty shots between 600 and 1200 mm, and an EVF is optional. See my posts , to see images obtainable at these focal ranges. I use pinhead sensors...FZ200 and SX50...and for 8x10 prints, or viewing on monitor, IQ is more than good enough.
mpgxsvcd: My 8 inch diameter telescope is only 800mm! Why in the world do people think they need 16 megapixels with 1200mm? Spotting scopes for rifles don’t even have that kind of focal length.
If they can shoot people miles away with a shorter focal length then you certainly can take a picture of them with a shorter focal length.
There's plenty to shoot with a 1200mm lens .Birds, wildlife, Here's a link ...first shot is handheld@1200mm, and shot through a fence!http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3784410
Actually few more of these are at close to or 1200mm!http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3778779
Thanks in part to the focal length, you can't tell that i was 5 feet in front of a fence, nor can you see the fence.
For 8' x 10' prints, these smallish sensors, with big telephoto zoom lenses have their place.
Timmbits: @DPR, with a title like that "High End Compact Roundup"...
one would expect an Actual Roundup of High-End compacts.
But no... 3 out of 6 have a tiny sensor, 1 has a very small sensor, of which none are "high end"... only 2 out of 6 is a failing mark in everyone's book.
Who composes your article titles? Someone who used to work in a paparazzi sensationalism newsroom?
A more apt title would have been simply "Xmas gift ideas" I know it sounds disappointing... but so is the roundup.
PS: " large sensors (compared to those in smartphones)" seriously, anything larger than a smartphone sensor is a "large sensor"? When did this new standard come about?
Some need to learn to read better...this is strictly a 'pocketable' category.
What composes their article titles?
Or do you mean' how do I learn to actually READ the titles, before I comment, and thus discredit myself ' , lol.
Small sensors are needed for such smallish camera's, in case you didn't know.
Gee....thanks for making me feel smart, after reading your comments :)
Paderborn: Why oh why have viewfinders disappeared from point and shoot cameras? Having to push the camera out at arms length to look at the screen virtually eliminates any possibility of candid photography. I find it far easier to shoot discreetly with a Canon 7D with a bolt on battery grip!
Funny...shooting discreetly with a 7D.....quite big for discrete, no ?Especially in that this review is for pocketable camera's.
nikon power: For all the cameras with zoom power that I've owned, my first shots with them was the moon. God had placed the moon up there in synchronous orbit for a reason. It's easier to compare the same moon's face as seen by all eyes and all cameras.
Haha...so Google knows everything...Mmmm 4 billion years ago the Moon collided, etc.Funny, wait another 50 years or so, and a different story will be told about how things came to be...or is the earth still flat , lol.When I was in school Pluto was the ninth planet...heard that isn't what they teach any more. I know we keep learning more, and that changes info....but Science states facts, when they aren't always facts. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, is that...a belief, a theory, since no one can go back in time, especially billions of years, lol.To believe all life and order came out of chaos, or an accidental explosion...well....no deep minded thinking going on there, IMHO.Still no scientific proof of the Earths origin, nor how old it really is.
wootpile: I have never shot anything at over 200mm. Still, the fz1000 seems like a pretty good grab-and-go camera. I would prefer a shorter lens and smaller size though. Good to see the 1-inch sector growing! Nikon - are you zzz?
Funny...just in the last few weeks, I have taken shots from 1200mm !
For wildlife and birds, the longer the better, all things equal. But for scenic s and landscapes, I also would favor a shorter telephoho range, for smaller size.
Mikofox: Does the FZ1000 preclude a successor to the FZ200? This release just adds to my confusion on choices.I'm still shooting the FZ35 and a GX1 for infrared, but was looking for better IQ and a camera that doesn't control me with it's sluggishness. The FZ1000 would do all this and more, but the IQ is still lacking if I compare it [studio scene] to the Fuji X-T1, which is on top of my list. Also I like the design of the X-T1 much better, or that of the Olympus M1. But this camera seems to have equal IQ to any MFT it seems. It's become so darn difficult with all the choices, and now DPReview is drooling over this camera, which makes it even harder for me to decide.
Decide first what your needs as a photographer are...do you mainly shoot landscapes....or wildlife...or indoors, low light?
This is a newer version in the FZ line.Different camera's for different needs.
This should have the IQ in line with the Sony RX-10/RX100MIII, due to the larger 1" type sensor...plus newer features ..i.e.. better AF tracking , Capable of recording 100Mbps 4K video ...even more controls than FZ200. Faster startup and operations..and more.
samfan: Let me put it this way. As advanced as Sony or Canon are, or as sympathetic as Fujifilm is, or as much as I like lots of other cameras...
The viewfinder, such as it is, on the LF1, gives it a million mile headstart against anything else in its class.
I will never, ever understand how can so many people shoot with their arms stretched, using cameras that are completely unfit for such a goal. I can make due with a positionable LCD (such as on my EX1), but fixed LCD? Never. Even though I have such a compact. It's just a terrible way to take pics (except macro/closeups).
I never liked Panasonic cameras, but recently it seems they're the only one that 'get it' in compacts.
Heck, if I want to carry a small pocket camera, I carry a FILM COMPACT just so I can have a viewfinder in a small camera. Maybe I'll consider such a Panasonic some day.
Those with decent vision only hold LCD about 5 to 7" inches away.
falconeyes: How many more times needs this be said?
It makes no sense to compare 35mm-equivalent focals and not compare 35mm-equivalent apertures. Sensor size is not even mentioned in the table, so it is impossible to draw own conclusions. Even if all cameras share one size, this should have been said.
Compare apertures?Not sure Why?
Small sensored camera's like these are known to have deep DOF.
When comparing exposure , it's the same.
My FZ200 exposes the same as my GH2 did.
Sensor size is different, but not exposure for given aperture.
Jim Evidon: Still no eye level finder either optical, EVF or hybrid. Therefore, not a serious camera for serious photographers. I'll stick to my OM-D and avoid the hand/arm shakes, thank you.
One fact we forget is, many older folk would need to hold camera at arms length, to actually 'see' the LCD, and sun glare, and unstable holding creates a reason for them to 'need' a EVF. Not about 'good photographer' or 'serious' photographer.
It's not about what is better. I'm only 47, but can use LCD 5 or 6 inches away, and have no real need for any type of EVF. (I used to wonder why anyone would hold camera at arms length...till I found out any closer, and the LCD is a blur...so for those folk, they 'need' EFV or they would't get the shots others can, using 2 eyes , just like they see the world now.)
I have good photo's taken at 600mm, handheld, and using LCD...no one here would claim ' non-serious user' , if they seen the photo's, but tell them I used LCD and....:)
Cameron R Hood: The distortions in that lens must be unbelievable.
RAW..in a superzoom...of course ! Panasonics FZ200 with sharp , fast lens(constant f2.8) shoots RAW, as does Canon's latest SX50.
Adobe Camera RAW fixes CF/PA and barrel distortions automatically, too
forpetessake: I'm not sure the lens on the long end is usable at all, it's equivalent to 1056mm f/40 in FF format. With such a dim lens even in best sunny day one has to use high ISO, slow shutter and will get a lot of noise and smeared action.
So true....take a FF D-SLR and a small sensored P&S, and at the same apurture, same shutter speeds will be obtained....it's only DOF that is different, and that only because of the size of the sensor. But folk here still don't get it...mainly because they never shot or compared the proof of this, by actually shooting a P&S and a D-SLR in the same lighting conditions.
My FZ200 shoots faster shutter speeds at f2.8, than my GH2 at f5.6@ 400mm.
Timmbits: Don't let the f1.8 number fool you! For all you guys who think that f1.8 is a big deal with a 1/2.3" sensor, it is equivalent to only f6.4 on an aps-c sensor camera.
According to the link below, you would need a f0.5 on a 1/2,3" sensor like this one in order to compete with an f1.8 on an aps-c sensor.
And we're not even comparing to FF (which is the more common reference).
Here is a very useful link for everyone in this forum: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Anyways, I realize that this is a high-end in the low-end cameras, and these comparisons aren't really relevant to it't target consumer market.
Just putting things into proper perspective here, so we can all understand what we are looking at.
We are looking at a lens that gathers as much light as on a FF sensor.It's just the DOF will be very different. Huge DOF with this small sensor...and Narrow DOF if this lens is in front of a FF sensor.
So light gathering principles are the same, regardless of sensor size. For these small sensored camera's, we would want faster glass, as that would keep the iso low, where the IQ is good....not so good once leaving base iso.