Nikon D90Nikon 16-85VRNikon 70-300VRSigma 10-20Sigma 150 2.8 MacroSlik 330EZ Lightweight TripodNikon SB800Canon S95
cmvsm: Still don't get a camera's ergonomic design where one cannot turn the camera on and off with one hand. Even when Canon puts the switch on the correct side, one needs to move their thumb off of the pad to turn it on, which can easily lead to dropped cameras. This is the primary reason why I never bought into Canon DSLR's.
So a design flaw falls back on the user? Got it....Again, Nikon puts it at the tip of the grip in EVERY camera, not just select ones. Seems like Canon can't decide the best configuration...
Yeah, you guys are right. Nikon got it all wrong with the on/off at the front of the grip. God forbid if the camera isn't on and I want to take a quick shot. Wasn't aware so many Canon shooters needed two hands to take a shot. Hence the design I suppose. Next thing, you all won't need a VF either. Two hands and an LCD...sounds like a bunch of weekend snappers. Good luck with that...
Still don't get a camera's ergonomic design where one cannot turn the camera on and off with one hand. Even when Canon puts the switch on the correct side, one needs to move their thumb off of the pad to turn it on, which can easily lead to dropped cameras. This is the primary reason why I never bought into Canon DSLR's.
johnsmith404: I don't get all the hype about 1-inch sensors being 'almost as good as traditional SLRs in good light'. Yes, the image quality is great for a 'compact' camera but people getting this kind of quality out of their SLRs should improve their technique before looking for a new camera.
Even in the official samples (which are probably as good as they get), the IQ at low ISO isn't great. For instance, the bird in the first image (ISO 125) looks totally flat and actually there is ZERO detail in the feathers. Most lowly SLR kit-teles do a better job with this kind of task.
On the other hand, there's probably not a single SLR out there that comes close in video quality.
You should be at 100% if your points were so completely obvious. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :) Thanks for the link.
I never said that large sensors, overall, do not trump a 1" sensor from an IQ standpoint, low light and versatility with standing. That is just common sense. What I did say is that a 1" sensor will perform as well, or sometimes even better, in good light at low ISO, and will hold up to printing A4 size and smaller. There is no perfect photo, whether you are using a P&S, or a D4S. Any of them can be picked apart for a variety of reasons. Same goes for lenses. You have to pick your poison in terms of what is important per dollar spent. I could show you a handful of photos online, and tell you that any number of cameras took the photo. Unless you had the EXIF in front of you, you wouldn't know the difference. To say otherwise would be deceiving.
Let's say in addition to a new D5300 kit with 18-55 at $850, you also have to add a 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 for $400, where we are at roughly $1300. The FZ1000 is about $900 or $400 cheaper, for now. But of course, you also added 3 lenses on the Nikon side, and will need a bag & back to hold/carry them.
The point is that the pixel peeping details you are meticulously pulling out of these photographs doesn't add up to a pile when it comes to the average prosumer shooting in bright light and printing at A4 or below. Nor should it.
If one shoots low light for a living, then full frame is the answer. If one shoots macro for a living, then a dedicated lens is the answer. But for general photography (i.e. candids, street photography, landscapes, everyday life & a movie or two), the FZ1000 is more than most would need, & is fully capable of meeting or even surpassing a DSLR for the return on investment, & the minuscule differences in IQ will never be seen, especially w/the lens mentioned above.
How much is a Sony a6000 with equivalent lens to the FZ1000?
On the contrary, I did look at ALL of the samples that you linked to, and was very impressed, especially when it came to the action pics of aircraft. Lots of detail on fast moving objects, which isn't an easy task. All of those pics, and you are going to hang your hat on a white bird with the sun shining directly at it, creating a blown highlight situation that would be a DR challenge for any camera? Surely you can do better than that.
And YES, the Sony offerings DO have virtually the same 1" sensor as indicated in the review. Have you been living under a rock? Ever hear of the Sony RX100 series? Probably the most popular compact today with its 3rd rendition just given a Gold Award by dpReview. The new Nikon 1 V3 also has a 1" sensor, and the Canon G1 X Mark II has a 1.5" sensor. If you want studio comparisons of those cameras, take a trip over to Imaging Resource and plug in the FZ1000 vs. the Nikon D5200 (which I currently have), and you will get an awakening.
SaltLakeGuy: ordered mine from a West Coast dealer today Saturday for next day delivery on Tuesday. Planning on some one on one full sized image comparisons against the Sony A77MkII just to see what this thing is made of. If it even so much as compares I'll keep it. I may be expecting too much, but I might just be surprised what it can do in stills. I won't pull punches however so we'll see.
Did you ever get those comparisons shot between the FZ1000 and the Sony A77MkII? I'm interested in seeing your findings. Thanks!
What don't you get? Proper technique is a given no matter what camera you are using, compact or full sized. And to say that a good compact cannot yield the same results as a DSLR in good lighting from today's offerings is naive. The Sony and Fuji offerings have shown this over and over again. That said, the primary advantages of a DSLR come in the form of low light performance, as well as versatility with lenses. However, even those areas are becoming blurred as technology marches on with mirrorless cameras. The big bulky DSLR is on its way out with the average prosumer, and the "Pros" do not pay the light bill...
A big winner for Panasonic. The bread & butter consumer will eat it up. I think that it also asks the question of all of us 'amateur' DSLR users, "How much do we actually need, and how much is just hype"? Most of my picture taking these days is of outside, amateur sporting events, landscapes, and candid street photography. I also enjoy shooting a movie from time to time. So why do I have a DSLR? Mostly, because of the low light performance that I 'think' I need, although, the vast majority of my shooting is in broad daylight. I also wanted something that was quick and could handle semi-fast sporting events, as well as RAW shooting for more in-depth post processing. That said, I don't like bringing my lenses with me all over the place, and many times, I find myself reaching for my compact versus the DSLR. So, at the end of the day, would this camera suffice for my needs...yep! And I would surmise, that it would for most others as well. Nice job Panasonic, I just might give you a go...
munro harrap: The high iso performance at 3200 iso is so bad the machine certainly does not merit a gold award.Manual focus and zoom are also questionably defective-slow to the point of useless for exactly the kind of quick snap stills photographers buy this sort of thing. so I guess it gets Gold as it has 4K nobody can yet see or edit properly. As we cannot see its 4K movies at their resolution we do not know if it is any improvement on the HD we can see. All that glisters....
Yes, at this price its a steal-of your money!!!
Imaging Resource samples at 3200 are just fine. Almost on par with the likes of a D5200, so I would certainly put it in a Gold class for an all in one shooter, especially with the range. Furthermore, why would the bulk of the target market of this camera use Manual focus? Although I haven't used it, this camera looks like it will be a winner for Panasonic, and for the bread and butter consumer, a target segment that you seem to not understand. Those that buy high end DSLR's and high end glass do not pay the light bill. Remember that...
abortabort: Typical DPR 'we hate sony because they aren't fun', but this time with no actual explanation... Because there just really isn't one. So you praise Fuji for more direct controls, like aperture rings around the lens, exp comp dials and e-dials... But when Sony do it it's 'less fun' than a Panasonic with one miserable dial... Righto! Maybe it's the selfie screen that makes it more 'funerer'?
I'm really contemplating selling my gear for one of these superzooms. I've been waiting for the AF speed to catch up with a DSLR, and although not perfect, it seems to come close, especially with Pannys new system. Lugging lenses around gets a bit tedious for a few low light advantages.
The RX10 received a Gold rating in its review. Do you even know what you are talking about?
"Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 compared to Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10"
That's the funniest headline I've ever seen here!
I've owned several Panasonic cameras, and I own the Rx10.The only Panasonic product I have ever liked was a cordless telephone.Saying a Panasonic anything could even remotely compare to a Sony anything is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here, and I've read a lot of nonsense.
The only reason I would even take this seriously is if I owned a Panasonic and didn't know any better.
Guess you didn't see the image comparisons. The Panasonic's 400 looked like the RX10's...oh wait, the RX10's lens falls a bit short.
ecm: Huh. A new-generation R1..... for $1300?? Nah.
For $820 I could get a Panasonic G6 kit plus the 45-150 and get better quality photos and videos in a smaller package, faster lens notwithstanding. If I was willing to go a bit larger I could get the Canon SL1 kit plus 55-250 for about $850..... Or the Nikon 3200, or, for that matter, Sony's own A58, and STILL kick this thing's #$$ for a lot less dollars.
You speak nonsense. Who wants a lens that starts at 45 and ends at 150? You get cheated on both sides of the tube. Put equivalent glass on the end of that Nikon 3200, and you'll be into the game for more money, and have just about the same performance. Step away from the keyboard and actually try a camera for a change.
mosc: I think the RX10 is overpriced. The lens is great but in a few years it can't be used with a newer 1" sony sensor that offers new things like 4k video or real action tracking on-chip PDAF. If they make an RX20 one day, you'll have to re-buy the lens. Maybe it'll be a little longer at tele or a little lighter but your old glass is throw away. Usually, fixed glass comes at a discount. No mount to deal with, the lens can have fewer compromises, saves money. That makes up for it. This one doesn't seem to have that.
You can't find 1" lenses that compete with this but there are plenty of APS-C sized lenses that do. The article lists a couple, the EF-S 18-135 and the very impressive sony E 18-105. There's also the 18-200 sigma that just came out which is under a pound and has 11x instead of 8x range and usable macro. The dimensions of the RX10 isn't revolutionary either compared to one of those lenses attached to a small camera. Several combos come out LIGHTER than the RX10, all are CHEAPER.
@Mosc - Why would you compare an 18-105 to the RX10's 24-200 lens? How is this making any kind of point in terms of light gathering?
bawbaw: Best thing to do if considering an rx10 ... buy an rx100. Unless video is your 100% primary concern ... it does 99.9% of the same thing. Has the same sensor. A slightly better lens if you go by the comparison on this review on raw.
Big thing is .. it goes in your pocket.
I shoot a Leica M9 normally.. although.. what do I grab most of the time due to space ... my rx100. It's that annoyingly good.
Oh and you can still get them new for £300 if you hunt about as they don't have wifi BOO HOOO.
You forgot the lens...minor oversight.
Boky: That is a lot of money for a camera with a small sensor and firmly attached lens, that will be obsolete in a year or 2. The sample photos look lifeless; however, I don't see as much of that famous RX100 yellow overcast, so it appears it is better at least in that regard. It is dslr-like size, costs a lot, but unusable at anything above ISO800...
The bulk of the people that buy DSLR's rarely take off their walk around lens. Are those cameras obsolete as well? And what 'mediocre' performance are you talking about? People like you get hung up on pixel peeping, and would rarely be able to tell the likes of an old D40/D50 combo versus today's D7100. The differences are just not there unless you are looking for speed or constant low light capability. I'm glad that people like you are there to trade up for the latest and greatest every cycle. You keep the water warm and camera companies fed until i NEED to upgrade....Thanks in advance.
Black Box: Yet another travesty from Sony. As a prototype exercise to keep the engineers on their toes, it's wonderful! As a consumer product, it really isn't.
This review keeps calling this monster a "compact". But with the weight and the size of a front-loader it's really not that small. Actually, it's just a tad larger than the Moon. And at the price, bulk and weight of the excellent Nikon D7100, why not have... the D7100?
If Sony were a car manufacturer, they'd install a jacuzzi in a Corolla. A BRILLIANT idea, if you don't care about size, weight and fuel economy!
So, again, we have a BRILLIANT product that noone cares about. And all of us who have trusted Sony for years and agreed to pay extra for the quality are becoming less and less happy about paying for Sony's neverending experimenting and get NOTHING in return.
My endless respect for Sony is rapidly coming to an end. I just don't care about them anymore.
You sound like an envious Nikon owner. I have owned a variety of Nikon bodies and glass over the years, but can see many spectacular areas that this camera has over my 7100. One is video. The video on the 7100 is ridiculous. Canon has owned Nikon in this category for years, yet Nikon continues to churn out the same crippled garbage, for whatever reason. Secondly is glass. Try finding a constant 2.8 aperture in the RX10s range. First off, you won't be able to, and second, you wouldn't be able to afford it if you did. Finally, in regard to portability, it trumps the 7100. I, as well as many, get tired of the bags of bodies, glass, etc., when going on an outing. Would be nice to have it all together for once. So, keep your envy in check. It will keep you from looking like a nob.