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.
AngryCorgi: GREAT!! I was holding off on purchasing a 1-system camera until they wised up and launched it in orange! Getting rid of that silly gimmicky "VR" nonsense is just icing on the cake! :)
good one...needed a laugh today!Thanks
Whats with this 25x less light?
Take the LX7 at full wide open aperture, then put it next to a FF D-SLR, with same aperture...and iso...look at the shutter speed.
Is it 25x less?Oh...same shutter spped, eh?
Because it's same regarding light gathering ability, but is much more close to 25x ONLY when comparing DOF.
Having a fast lens on a small sensor camera gives same shutter speeds, but not same DOF, as larger sensored camera's..
I've proven this from using my GH2 and small sensored FZ's.Taking photo's at the Zoo, same shutter speeds are obtained, regardless of which camera I use,when set to same aperture and iso..
Try this, and experience this...but why type erroneous info?
New King of m 4/3rd ?
Comparing it to the GH2...seems the OM- D is slightly better.I see less chroma noise in raw, at higher iso's.Detail retention seems the same.That's good news !
PaulRivers: "As far as its operational ergonomics are concerned, the only thing we wish the S100 had, which it does not, is a dedicated ISO button."
Wish the review had mentioned that you can iso to the shortcut button - err, the "Ring Func." button.
It did, Paul.
"...you're left with two choices for ISO - either assign it to the RING FUNC button, on the rear of the camera, or just dive quickly into the FUNC menu. Easy enough."...
and "...The 'Ring Func' button is customizable, and can take on any of the functions offered by the S90 / S95's 'S' shortcut button. We suspect many users will set it to control ISO, and leave it there."...
Have a Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday Paul !!
mauro paillex: Buy an fx100 Fuji.Best Viewfinder ever seen in a compact camera! A true photographer needs a viewfinder. Cameras like gx1 and similar are toys!
Haha... only true photographers need/use OVF/EVF ???
Only those with bad eyes, need such a old fashioned one eye viewfinder.....many younger folk can use LCD with no problems, and don't need to hold it 12" away ...more like 5" .
Better to use two eyes to compose than one, me thinks.
jmellas: 75% less noise than the S95!! If that's true I'll shed the $400-500 no problem. What non-professional DSLR zoom lens allows u to shoot at f2.0?
If shutter speed was a constant, say in a low light indoor situation, and the widest a typical zoom opens to is, say, to around f4 then:
Canon S100f2.0 + 1/30s + 400 ISO = proper exposureDSLRf4 + 1/30s + 1600 ISO = proper exposure
Those two images should be a lot closer in quality than one may think! Keep in mind that the subject may run away when they see the DSLR pointing their way... :)
DPReview list the max apertures, at different focal lengths!
They are:24 -f2.028- f 2.235 - f2.850 - f485 - f5.0100 - f5.6120 - f5.9
Klarno: Well that's a disappointment. If this had been small--like the concurrently released 14-42 is small, but within reason to account for its focal length--I'd have considered this as a pocket tele zoom. But I guess, in the end, they couldn't get around the laws of physics.
Overpriced to boot (for the speed and apparent target market, not necessarily for whatever the quality turns out to be), I suppose too will be staying with my CDAF-compatible Four Thirds kit lenses when I need to go compact and high quality.
I think it is smaller, well...it is as big as it is, ....i.e. stays the same size when zoomed in (tele). The 45 to 200mm lens is a bit bigger, when zooming to the 200mm end. this lens has internal zooming, so it stays the same .
internal zooming lenses are a welcome, me thinks!