Nikon D90Nikon 16-85VRNikon 70-300VRSigma 10-20Sigma 150 2.8 MacroSlik 330EZ Lightweight TripodNikon SB800Canon S95
Tom Goodman: 145 comments and counting and most of them are about what is wrong with Nikon's management and strategies.
Just don't buy their cameras if you feel that way and get a Canon, Sony, Olympus or something else, but why post about what Nikon fails to do for you? I guess it must be the urge to let the public know you are smarter than the folks at Nikon and by George you're gonna' let the poor slobs know it.
That's what forums are for. Nikon should be combing these like market share reports and take hints as to what the consumer is looking for. Although, same old, same old seems to take precedence.
When are we going to see something ground breaking?? Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, and even Samsung, are all on the innovation wagon. I keep seeing the same bodies with minor upgrades in these Nikon models. I'd like to see the share that they've lost to upgrading consumers that either have stayed with their old bodies or moved on to another brand. All of my stuff is Nikon, but the temptation to stray continues to grow.
One would think that the fully articulated screens would be standard issue on all entry to enthusiast level cameras. If not, might as well keep giving share away to the smartphone genre.
Still can't turn it on with one hand...Fail!
Neodp: So it's a like Stop less in background blur isolation than a kit lens on a crop DSLR. Including worse Bokeh quality. Not with light; but in terms of DOF eqiv, and it's huge. That's not good. Not at the price.
They should NOT have listened to novices as to lusting for ZOOM X-FACTOR and just made a better camera. They should have capped the focal at 100mm (eqiv angle) and went the other way! Heck, they should have done 27-100mm on MFT. Made that a f/2.8 CONSTANT lens (built-in, so very IQ optimized optimized) and then you'd have something. Think about it. There's your do all camera. Mid small size, affordable price. Leica F2.8 27-100mm HELLO! They could even sell "X-FACTOR" extenders to the silly crowd.
But they wouldn't make that.
You missed the entire point of the camera. Consumers want ease of use with a respectable range to take care of all needs. I doubt the target of this camera will ever shoot in A Priority, and has no clue what a 2.8 constant lens is. Amateur demand pays the light bill, not the 'professional' crowd, and with today's competition, a 27-100 would simply disappear in the sea of cameras already on the market, and not provide Panasonic with a consumer flagship product that where it trumps the competition. For what it is, its a great little piece.
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.