I have now used my FZ2500 for more than three months.
If you're looking for my one-liner verdict... It is very good, even excellent in good daylight, sometimes finicky, and has its limitations in low light.
If you've had enough, stop! If you want the gory details, read on.
Background... why did I buy it? I had used the FZ1000 for two months last year. I liked that the FZ2500 has the same sensor, extra 80mm reach with the new lens, touchscreen, and more function buttons. I like the DSLR style of these cameras, lighter, and no need to change lenses.
My hope was that the IQ would be as good as that of FZ1000 and that the improved video features would be useful (for my future plans to do more video).
The extra $400 was OK price to pay for those extras. I had been looking for an all-in-one travel camera since last summer and my December vacation trip was the best time for it.
First experience... I noticed few things right away within the first week of buying the camera. One was that it was much quieter than the FZ1000: good. Second was that it had similar noise in low light at higher ISO (based on photos taken at a high school event in the auditorium): OK. The last thing was that the hood was large, ugly and obstructive: bad! Later I learned that the lens barrel can be stopped from retracting, through a menu option: good.
Noise in low light shots (it has some blur from hand-shake but not relevant)
In good daylight... I used it on a week long trip to Mauritius. The photos turned out excellent, probably as good as my D7200 would have produced (at least, close enough - for large monitors, TVs and average prints). When there is good/bright available light, this camera does very well. Hardly anything to complain about.
Excellent in good daylight
Some of my photos during the trip were shot through the window of our taxi going at about 60 KM/H. They turned out better than I expected!
Shot from the taxi when going at about 60 KM/H
What happens sometimes... I don't always get the best photos. The rate of keepers is lower than I would like. I found that there are several reasons for it.
* The IS is not consistent for me. Especially at longer focal length, there is a shake/blur. The sharpness of the image reduces as the distance from the subject increases - irrespective of focal length. This has nothing to do with zoom. At reasonably close distances I get excellently sharp photos even at 480 mm.
480 mm at close distance (~8 feet) cropped
480 mm at moderate distance (~50 feet?) cropped
480 mm at moderate distance; cropped. Can't remember if I had the i.Zoom ON.
* The lens is also finicky about any glass in front of it. For example, I used the clear glass digital filters that I use on my DSLR. I think of them as high quality but the FZ2500 does not like them. I get many dull images. It reduces both contrast and sharpness. Similarly the double-paned glass door to my deck. I get very few excellent shots through that glass. In comparison, the % of good photos goes up with shooting directly outside.
With filter used... not a bad example but I've had better ones.
* Because the lens is finicky with a filter in front of it, and because of my fear of damaging the front lens element by bumping into somethhing, I constantly have the hood on. It is an ungly and inconvenient thing in my opinion. I consider it as a neccessary evil like many things in life. I am looking for a more compact hood like the one I had on my FZ1000.
* The lens is also finicky with flare/glare. I have had excellent shots of sunset shooting into the sun. I also had bad photos when the light hits the lens sideways. I guess the hood helps with this situation.
* I have seen other members produce very good results using i.zoom and EZ but that did not work for me. I prefer to stay within the 480 mm optical zoom. The photos lose both contrast and sharpness when I go into the tricky zooms.
Extended/i.zoom - I don't like
Actually, except for distant birds, I don't need beyond 300 mm optical zoom. So, there's no real reason for tricky zooms for general use.
Finally, the RAW images... I had high hopes since DxO released an update supporting this camera for RAW files. I have been playing with this over the past two or three weeks. I find that there is no big benefit with RAW files. There is more noise in the RAW files than I see in my D7200. Consequently, they require more processing. This tells me that the camera is doing a very good job to produce the JPEG images the way it does! DxO cam produce images just as good but I am not seeing any advantage to go over RAW processing.
Then about JPEG. I find that Scenery produces best results when the sky is in the photo and Vivid produces the best results in all other cases. I have tried shooting in Natural photo style and processing it on the computer. The RAW file is of higher bit rate and the JPEG is only 8-bit. The camera has already thrown away some detail in producing the JPEGs. So, I find it better to let the camera process from RAW files instead of me tweaking the lower bit rate JPEGs.
For my taste, I have set the EV to -1/3, Highlights to +5 and Shadows to -2.
Processed from RAW, Applied B&W preset in DxO
JPEG SOOC; cropped
Conclusion... read the one-liner verdict at the top!
Joking aside, I will comment on two points that come up frequently on the forums.
1. Is it better than FZ1000? For me it is because of the reasons I stated above and I was willing to pay the extra $400 for it. If you already have an FZ1000, I don't see it as an attractive upgrade. If you're buying a new camera today, you should consider the features as I explained above.
2. Is there sample variation? Based on online reviews and experienced members' posts on this forum, I think that there is. I have not experienced any because this is my only copy! I haven't been able to produce images that I can call excellent, but have had an equal number of bad ones too. It tells me that the camera is capable but I need to learn to use it to its strengths.
Its real limitation is in low light. There are those times when I feel the need for my D7200 with Sigma 18-35/1.8! This is not surprising because I had the same experience with the FZ1000 last year.
Overall, this camera with its long zoom lens is convenient and lighter than my DSLR system. I can easily carry it anywhere without feeling the weight. That's why I call it an all-in-one travel camera. To that extent it meets most of my needs, and exceeds in some areas.
All the best.
--
'Knowledge is the only form of wealth that increases when shared' - unknown
My FZ2500 album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskQU7Thb
My D7200 album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskQjybAS
All my albums: https://www.flickr.com/photos/satya_a/albums
If you're looking for my one-liner verdict... It is very good, even excellent in good daylight, sometimes finicky, and has its limitations in low light.
If you've had enough, stop! If you want the gory details, read on.
Background... why did I buy it? I had used the FZ1000 for two months last year. I liked that the FZ2500 has the same sensor, extra 80mm reach with the new lens, touchscreen, and more function buttons. I like the DSLR style of these cameras, lighter, and no need to change lenses.
My hope was that the IQ would be as good as that of FZ1000 and that the improved video features would be useful (for my future plans to do more video).
The extra $400 was OK price to pay for those extras. I had been looking for an all-in-one travel camera since last summer and my December vacation trip was the best time for it.
First experience... I noticed few things right away within the first week of buying the camera. One was that it was much quieter than the FZ1000: good. Second was that it had similar noise in low light at higher ISO (based on photos taken at a high school event in the auditorium): OK. The last thing was that the hood was large, ugly and obstructive: bad! Later I learned that the lens barrel can be stopped from retracting, through a menu option: good.
Noise in low light shots (it has some blur from hand-shake but not relevant)
In good daylight... I used it on a week long trip to Mauritius. The photos turned out excellent, probably as good as my D7200 would have produced (at least, close enough - for large monitors, TVs and average prints). When there is good/bright available light, this camera does very well. Hardly anything to complain about.
Excellent in good daylight
Some of my photos during the trip were shot through the window of our taxi going at about 60 KM/H. They turned out better than I expected!
Shot from the taxi when going at about 60 KM/H
What happens sometimes... I don't always get the best photos. The rate of keepers is lower than I would like. I found that there are several reasons for it.
* The IS is not consistent for me. Especially at longer focal length, there is a shake/blur. The sharpness of the image reduces as the distance from the subject increases - irrespective of focal length. This has nothing to do with zoom. At reasonably close distances I get excellently sharp photos even at 480 mm.
480 mm at close distance (~8 feet) cropped
480 mm at moderate distance (~50 feet?) cropped
480 mm at moderate distance; cropped. Can't remember if I had the i.Zoom ON.
* The lens is also finicky about any glass in front of it. For example, I used the clear glass digital filters that I use on my DSLR. I think of them as high quality but the FZ2500 does not like them. I get many dull images. It reduces both contrast and sharpness. Similarly the double-paned glass door to my deck. I get very few excellent shots through that glass. In comparison, the % of good photos goes up with shooting directly outside.
With filter used... not a bad example but I've had better ones.
* Because the lens is finicky with a filter in front of it, and because of my fear of damaging the front lens element by bumping into somethhing, I constantly have the hood on. It is an ungly and inconvenient thing in my opinion. I consider it as a neccessary evil like many things in life. I am looking for a more compact hood like the one I had on my FZ1000.
* The lens is also finicky with flare/glare. I have had excellent shots of sunset shooting into the sun. I also had bad photos when the light hits the lens sideways. I guess the hood helps with this situation.
* I have seen other members produce very good results using i.zoom and EZ but that did not work for me. I prefer to stay within the 480 mm optical zoom. The photos lose both contrast and sharpness when I go into the tricky zooms.
Extended/i.zoom - I don't like
Actually, except for distant birds, I don't need beyond 300 mm optical zoom. So, there's no real reason for tricky zooms for general use.
Finally, the RAW images... I had high hopes since DxO released an update supporting this camera for RAW files. I have been playing with this over the past two or three weeks. I find that there is no big benefit with RAW files. There is more noise in the RAW files than I see in my D7200. Consequently, they require more processing. This tells me that the camera is doing a very good job to produce the JPEG images the way it does! DxO cam produce images just as good but I am not seeing any advantage to go over RAW processing.
Then about JPEG. I find that Scenery produces best results when the sky is in the photo and Vivid produces the best results in all other cases. I have tried shooting in Natural photo style and processing it on the computer. The RAW file is of higher bit rate and the JPEG is only 8-bit. The camera has already thrown away some detail in producing the JPEGs. So, I find it better to let the camera process from RAW files instead of me tweaking the lower bit rate JPEGs.
For my taste, I have set the EV to -1/3, Highlights to +5 and Shadows to -2.
Processed from RAW, Applied B&W preset in DxO
JPEG SOOC; cropped
Conclusion... read the one-liner verdict at the top!
Joking aside, I will comment on two points that come up frequently on the forums.
1. Is it better than FZ1000? For me it is because of the reasons I stated above and I was willing to pay the extra $400 for it. If you already have an FZ1000, I don't see it as an attractive upgrade. If you're buying a new camera today, you should consider the features as I explained above.
2. Is there sample variation? Based on online reviews and experienced members' posts on this forum, I think that there is. I have not experienced any because this is my only copy! I haven't been able to produce images that I can call excellent, but have had an equal number of bad ones too. It tells me that the camera is capable but I need to learn to use it to its strengths.
Its real limitation is in low light. There are those times when I feel the need for my D7200 with Sigma 18-35/1.8! This is not surprising because I had the same experience with the FZ1000 last year.
Overall, this camera with its long zoom lens is convenient and lighter than my DSLR system. I can easily carry it anywhere without feeling the weight. That's why I call it an all-in-one travel camera. To that extent it meets most of my needs, and exceeds in some areas.
All the best.
--
'Knowledge is the only form of wealth that increases when shared' - unknown
My FZ2500 album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskQU7Thb
My D7200 album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskQjybAS
All my albums: https://www.flickr.com/photos/satya_a/albums
!
