Stephen McDonald: There's no mention of a loss of resolution in the FZ1000 lens, beyond 300mm. This is mentioned in another review. In the samples, there's only a couple of full-zoom photos and they don't look very sharp. This issue needs to be examined closely and addressed in the next edition of a DPR review on this camera.
> This issue needs to be examined closely [...]
P.S. Optics 101: All long tele zooms become soft at the tele end. Some worse, some better - but all are pretty mediocre. Or very bad, if compared to a dedicated tele prime.
fwandy: If Sony don't get a sensible priced 4k camera out soon I will be going for the Panasonic.
Ironic comment, fwandy, considering that FIFA World Cup 2014 right now is plastered with Sony 4K ads.
ThePhilips: "[...] the company responsible for such iconic products as the Box Brownie and Kodachrome [...]"
On a slow news day, DPR actually can actually review some of the classical cameras like Brownie or Leica or Contax. Having them in the studio comparator would be interesting.
P.S. I hope one still can buy film?
P.P.S. That reminds. We are obsessing about the IQ of sensors. But before that people were obsessing about the IQ of films. Review of the films is a long overdue.
Digitizing film is certainly a nasty subject.
I actually thought about something simpler: to show the progress of the photography though the last 50-60 years.
stratplaya: Is Kodak still "Kodak"? I wonder if the company sold the brand the same way Polaroid did.
@monkey, I know. But to people living there, it is the China. Two states - but one country.
"[...] the company responsible for such iconic products as the Box Brownie and Kodachrome [...]"
topstuff: With smart phones getting better and better, growing numbers of people even using tablets for photography, this is a brave move.
The existing m4/3 guys can't make money. If they were not part of larger conglomerates they wouldn't exist now.
I wish this venture great success and good luck. They are going to need it. :)
From what I have read, in Asia there is a boom of photography.
The smartphone camera market, the low-end, nears the saturation. (If you ever wondered why Samsung/etc keeps releasing new phones every month, the answer is: for China where having an up-to-date camera inside the phone is gravely crucial for the sales.)
The high-end is dominated by (IIRC) Canon. DSLRs became status symbol. Only rich can afford them, but, as income inequality rises, the number of rich is growing.
Finally. As I understood it, the JK tries to create the mid-level market. Something between smartphones and DSLRs.
The article I've read actually suggested that JK would fail for a simple reason that the cameras are produced locally, and, unlike the imported DSLRs, do not constitute a status symbol. And being "status symbol" is very important for the market.
Taiwan is technically China. A different one, but still China.
ThePhilips: This is not the first time something like this gets implemented.
But all the solutions have the same problem: latencies.
Wacoms are somewhat faster, but also have noticeable lag between the time the stroke/point is made and it is actually drawn.
I think it is software lag. Still: it is a lag.
The demos I have seen were using Wacom + Photoshop and I think (haven't touched the thing in years) it was the typical Photoshop lag when rendering a curve on a high DPI image.
Actually, now that makes me realize why some tablet users still cling to the mspaint.exe: it is so primitive, it has virtually zero lag.
The Davinator: Too much time is wasted on comparing ridiculously high iso ratings that make up such a minute amount of where photographers normally reside. There must be a small underground movement of people producing 20x30 landscape, street, or portraiture at 100,000 iso that I must be missing.
"Too much time is wasted on comparing ridiculously high iso ratings [...]"
Look at this from perspective of layman: with good high ISO performance, you can really think about scene in terms of aperture and shutter speed. And only aperture and shutter speed.
This is not the first time something like this gets implemented.
mosc: No on-chip PDAF, any thoughts on the difference that makes? 4/3rds has been relying on CDAF-only for years but does that hold true for this product as well? RX10 doesn't have it either I guess. Do we have a sensor that does full-sensor video readout AND OC-PDAF yet?
> Fujifilm made dramatic improvements in AF speed with the XE-2 and XT-1.
Fuji does improve but still lagging behind the m43. XT1 is only real contestant but it uses the OS-PDAF.
> The nikon 1 series are also blazingly fast.
Again, OS-PDAF, not CDAF.
> Well their are more mirrorless that can keep up with M43 in AF speed.
It wasn't about whose AF is faster. But, in context of DFD, how do they get there.
My point was, regardless how much I wish it were true, the DFD is unlikely to be the game changing tech. The DFD requires fast CDAF and only O&P (m43) and probably Nikon 1 have it.
@Lab D. DFD is not a closed deal, per se.
DFD still requires high performance CDAF which (outside the Oly and the Pana) is a rare sight.
But then again, most (OS)PDAF mirrorless lose in AF performance to the m43 CDAF mirrorless. A6000 is the first non-m43 cam to actually compete with m43 in AF speed department - and it relies on OS-PDAF to accomplish that.
Chances are that most manufacturers would probably go with OS-PDAF rather than CDAF/DFD. On paper it would look OK from day one, what is important to the marketing. Actual performance should catch up in few year.
To me it appears that only few manufacturers are able (or willing) to implement the fast read-out/fast CPU required for fast CDAF, and rather opt for the PDAF.
Edymagno: Dangerous times to buy expensive glass.
"Dangerous times to buy expensive glass."
Since the advent of software correction, the "expensive glass" already became redundant IMO.
Some m43 lenses are already designed around this: correct with glass only what can't be corrected in software, correct the rest in software.
Now, curved sensor + software correction combined might be sufficient to finally produce the 18-600 f/4.0 (or even f/2.8) dream super zoom.
Richard Murdey: I still find it head-scratching that the RX10 and FZ1000 are praised for their performance and image quality, while a Nikon 1 camera with either of the 10-100 superzoom lenses is held is such low respect it doesn't even warrant a word of disparagement.
Richard, why would you want to remove the lens?
I wish I had a 2.8-4.0/24-400mm eq collapsible lens for my DSLR.
I wouldn't have changed it too most of the time.
"The FZ1000 also gains the GH4's 'DFD focusing' [...]"
DPR should also test the AF-C then.
This an interesting development in itself: with DFD, theoretically any CDAF camera with fixed lens can be made to track in AF-C.
ProfHankD: Quite good IQ against other 1" sensors. When you compare to an APS-C body, this isn't as good at 100 as the A6000 is at 1600... and the A6000 isn't bigger nor more expensive (actually, the FF A7 is smaller than the FZ1000). The FZ1000 lens is fast and long, as the smaller sensor permits....
In sum, it's a very good camera, looks more than equal to the Sony RX10, but I'm not a compact user looking for a DSLR-size-and-shape camera without the IQ benefits. Is that really a big market?
@ProfHankD, from DPR's own Sony F828 review:
"Two negative points are firstly the frustrating action of the shutter release button with or without auto review, if you press it slightly too quickly the camera simply ignores it, not good. Secondly the fact that RAW images are not buffered and you must wait over 10 seconds before you can take another shot in RAW mode."
Lag: "Shot to Shot - Wide angle, Auto Review Off - 1.3 seconds"
It so slow that ignores user command. And *10* efffing seconds to write the RAW?!1.3 seconds shot-to-shot lag??
The only "good" thing about the Sony F828 is its current sentimental value.
ALL bridge cameras I have handled (till Pana FZ150) sucked in many ways. The Pana sucked too - but only in few ways, to the point where I didn't noticed it most of the time. (But by the time I tried the Pana I have already bought a DSLR.)
Biological_Viewfinder: Because of this website, I have purchased several Panasonic cameras over the years. But I've come to the conclusion that there has never been a top-notch Panasonic anything, ever.-The Sony isn't perfect, but I'd rather pay $1300 for the Sony Rx10 and have a camera that produces output that I can enjoy, than pay $800 for a Panasonic that I won't even use because the output is lacking.-Once again, let me remind you that I've purchased several cameras from Panasonic over the years. *NONE OF THEM* produced images that were useful to me. I've owned the Nikon D800e and others. I was *NEVER* happy with any Panasonic product. My biggest complaint is the ugly, chunky noise and horrible low-light capabilities.
"I would need some major hype over a Panasonic product to *EVER* buy their goods again anytime for the rest of my life."
Hype-based buying decisions always *always* end up in disappointment. As hype evaporates and rational thought creep back, often you realize that you simply do not need the product you just bought.
I have only one advice for you: do not buy Panasonic, and to avoid needless stress, do NOT read or comment on Panasonic product announcements/reviews.
I'm personally pretty happy with my Pana GX7.
P.S. The "popping" colors on the Sony TVs: you might want to adjust the saturation.
KZMike: I'd like to see a 'side by side' comparison with a GH-3 or GH-? in addition to the Sony and Canon we see here. . . .??
Camerasize has already several angles of the fz1k:
Lab D: I don't know how I missed this, but this is huge..."Autofocus is extremely quick, even at the full extent of its huge lens, to the point that we were able to get good numbers of in-focus images even when shooting fast-moving cyclists with an almost entirely unfamiliar camera."
Pana effectively pioneered fast CDAF several years ago. And they were putting it into literally every camera they make since then.
I'm not huge fan of Pana ergonomics, but the cameras handle very well. You rarely have to wait for the camera.
Thsoft: Why no touch screen ?
@Thsoft, it seems that Pana had to compromise: the screen is relatively small. So they have decided to skip the touchscreen.
But together with some basic weather-sealing, it is IMO an omission.