Wildlife shooting? Ditch your m43 Panny and buy a Superzoom!

Started Jun 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Leandros S Senior Member • Posts: 1,972
Re: You need a major refresher course on optics...

Jorginho wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

How nice from Panasonic....The FZ1000 looks to be a great cam on paper at least. And in itself a very nice move and a nice cam!

But how about this one. You buy a GH4 like me. You find you really need a good lens that stretches beyond 200 mm equiv for birding. Panasonic says: "No, we are not going to build such a lens (like 100-250 mm f2.8 to f4 or f4)."

No...for that system we focus on small lenses for GM1....

So if this is all correct, I need to buy a superzoom with a smaller sensor (1"is still very good though), fixed lens AND WITH DFD to get into a nice range for wildlife and birding with a (probably) very good lens..

Apparantly people who buy a Superzoom want to have this kind of glass more than those who
have the intention to buy more glass in the first place...

No G7 either...but a superzoom: yes....I feel left in the cold here big time!

But okey: the FZ1000 in itself is a very nice and well thoght out development.

The FZ1000 is going to be a great camera certainly, but it, in no way, will be competitive with the GH4 with the 100-300. Let me explain.

If you want pure image quality and detail at 400m eq., a 16x lens at its maximum zoom is highly unlikely to be competitive with a 3x zoom lens at mid-zoom. The 100-300 will win here at 400mm eq.

If you want light gathering capability and shallow DOF, the 100-300mm will win here too. Even if the FZ1000 has F4 at its max zoom and the 100-300mm has higher than F4 at 200mm (400mm eq.), the 100-300mm will still win for light gathering.

The reason why is slightly complicated, but it has to do with the fact that the MFT sensor is larger. So, F/5.6 on MFT is equivalent to F/4 on the 1" sensor. Since the 100-300 has F/5.6 at 300mm, it stands to reason it's going to be a larger aperture (smaller F-number) at 200mm.

Make sense? The 100-300 wins on all counts, even if it's not F/4 at 200mm (400mm eq.).

I think you forget quite a few things in your comparison.

1) It remains to be seen the 100-300 is better optically. It is not superb and these LEICA zooms are known to be superb. The FZ-50 (which I had) had a great lens. Wait and see how well it performs.

2) this sensor has 20 MPixels, slightly better for cropping than the 16 MPixel. More detail too (possibly).

3) You now take the 100-300 as the basis of your argument? the basis is however how well it shoots wildlife. A 200-600 mm compared to a 25-400 does suck reallybad at 25-200 mmm...
An amimals coming towards you fast simply means you need to exchange lenses and no burstshooting here.

I'll remain sceptical that your electronic zoom will keep up with an animal coming towards you, or allow you any reasonable framing control as it does so. Certainly a big challenge for any continuous autofocus system under burst mode.

4) How well does 5 axis IBIS compare to the OIS? Important but remains to be seen.

5) At 200 mm the 100-300 is f4.9. That is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 200 mm f4 on the FZ1000. THe FZ1000 therefor will have higher shutterspeeds at the same FL here. In its favour.

Like beachbum, I'm not sure that you're working with equivalent apertures in your calculation.

6) The most important thing: the EVF slows down badly with the 100-300 on it. It is really difficult to track a fast moving subject. The difference with the 45-175 is clealry noticable, with the 35-100 it is huge...If the FZ1000 is like the 45-175 in the 100-200 range it is really a better cam than the 100-300 for this.

If that's true, it's likely a result of less light coming to the sensor with a long lens, and avoiding a noisy EVF image. Again, that sounds like physics to me, which means the FZ1000 would have to cut a corner somewhere to offer more responsive EVF in the same conditions.

Panny needs to get its act together and understand that it interchangebale lens users are the ones who need and want a much better performing (not IQ wise per se) lens that can focus fast on the GH4.

Back on topic: it is not clear at all that the 100-300 mm is superior to the FZ1000. I like the lens when it is on a tripod especially for wildlife that is standing still....But for tracking wildlife it is simply not up for it.

5) The 100-300 is pretty bad at AF -c. You get about 2 pics per second but the system slows down so much (most of all the EVF) that it is really difficult to track a bird or animal. If the FZ1000, which also has DFD, does clealry better here to my mind it beats the 100-300 on the most important points.

Sounds like that still remains to be seen.

-- hide signature --

No amount of perceived entitlement can replace actual expertise.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow