fotodoug: Small enlargements won't highlight advantages, or disadvantages in most cameras. I have an FZ200, and got a shot of a Sri Lankan shop owner that was spectacular! I enlarged it to 2'x3', and could still see individual pores and eyelashes. Yes, an ff camera would have shown the pores and eyelashes with greater accuracy, but considering how much time I had to get the shot, if I didn't have exactly the right lens on the ff camera, I wouldn't have gotten the shot. This is a $600 camera the replaces a 50lb camera bag, and a full frame camera that never seems to have the right lens on it! Yes, I will get one of these...my back thanks me, my wife thanks me (for not being a target of thieves any more), and most importantly, the things I photograph thank me because I'm not fiddling with lenses anymore...I get the shot!
I loved the functionality of my FZ200, but SILKYPIX Developer Studio, which if bundled for processing RAW image allow the user to adjust only one image at a time, which is far too slow for me. And with the tiny sensor, I need to adjust noise reduction / sharpness on every image.I tryed Light Room also, but it also doesn't allow noise reduction adjustment on more than a single image at a time. Canon's Digital Photo Professional does allow all available RAW adjustments to be made on multiple images at one time. Don't know about RAW processing software for Nikon, Sony or Pentex/Ricoh cameras.
Jothi: Can we shoot photos with a very shallow dof?
In reality, the long end of the zoom is equivalent to 108mm F2.8. My experience is that for head and should shots, you could blow out the background somewhat, but if isolation using limited DOF is important to you, you would be much better off using a camera with a larger sensor.
My biggest issue with the FZ200 is the bundled software for processing RAW images, SILKYPIX Developer Studio. Its interface is a little slow but the deal breaker for me is that the user must make adjustments one image at a time. And with these tiny sensors, I have to play with the noise reduction setting on all images.
In contrast, with Canon's bundled Digital Photo Professional, I could make the same adjustments to a group of images together.
IMO, this is critical for efficient work flow.
I'm glad the resolution of the Electronic viewfinder is ~ 2X higher than the EVF on my FZ-200, which is already very usable, hopefully the responsiveness of the EVF is better also. The slight delay in the EVF display requires a little more anticipation and make sports photography harder. BTW, the short delay in FZ-200's EVF is pretty acceptable and is better than any other camera w/ EVF I've used, but the extra ~.1 sec is noticeable when shooting actions especially when compared to optical viewfinders on my DSLR. But I guess asking a superzoom to do everything as well or better than my DSLR is asking a bit too much.IMO, Panasonic made pretty good compromises in designing the FZ-1000, chip size & max aperture vs. bulkiness of the camera, and the price is competitive.We'll have to wait and see how well the actual production version perform.
justmeMN: Big camera: 17% wider and 9% taller than a Canon SL1 /100D DSLR.
The SL1 is a little bit too small for my hand, my pinky doesn't fit comfortably on the grip.
Deso: Panasonic, please listen.Your JPG engine needs serious work.Everywhere you look there's chroma noise, even in flat colour surfaces.While the RX10 doesn't win overall and sony's JPG engine also isn't something to boast about, it looks better levelled out and handles that chroma noise better.
Compare to the canon G1X MK2 (i know, not the same zoom range/competitor) their JPG output is a lot more natural and pleasing to my eye.
Panasonic is making technological marvels....now to put a soul into those marvels.
Always shoot RAW, this is especially important on cameras with smaller / noisier chips.I was able to get pretty clean images out of my FZ-200 up to ISO 800, shooting RAW with careful adjustment on the RAW converter in the PC. With the significantly larger chip on the FZ-1000, I would expect clean images to ISO 1600 or may be even ISO 3200 after RAW processing.
SLOphoto1: The Manual setting does NOT "offer[s] the complete flexibility of full manual control" for the SX40. There is now a governor on it. Try to set the ISO at 400 for a night shot, and then spin the dial towards a 15 second shutter speed. It stops it at 1 second and drops the ISO to 100. Then a message appears on the LCD which says, "ISO speed is limited due to slow shutter speed." I verified it with Canon today. Canon also verified that all previous Canon cameras DID allow full Manual control in setting both the ISO and shutter speed, but no more. This has halted a large portion of the sunset and night photography I have been doing of the Monterey Bay Harbor for the past 2 years. It is condescending and insulting to long-term Canon users to presume to say to us, "We think you don't know what you are doing, and we are no longer going to let you use those traditional manual settings anymore." Obviously if we use a Manual setting it is precisely because we DO KNOW what we are doing!
Currently, this is the primary issue keeping me from purchasing the SX40.What's the point installing a lower noise sensor if the manufacturer's firmware doesn't let you take advantage of higher ISO during longer exposures?Personally, I most likely wouldn't be using it to photograph astro objects but I do enjoy photographing late evening skyline, around ISO 400, 2 - 8 sec exposures.