Another 1" sensor camera, Panasonic's Lumix FZ1000.

Thanks, I just read that. So it's 400 mm FOV vs 800 mm FOV. I'll get the 70 to 300 and stay with the V1.

I suspect I'll do the same with my V2. Depends on what the 70-300 is like, and no whisper of a review anywhere.

dpr4bb said:

Thanks for that. So it's using pixel-binning instead of line-skipping which is a big improvement.

Click to expand...

NOT in 4K! Read clearly - in 4K it's a straight crop from the centre of the sensor: No binning or skipping. It's pretty much like the ETC mode with less TC and more E.

yslee1 said:

dpr4bb said:

Thanks for that. So it's using pixel-binning instead of line-skipping which is a big improvement.

Click to expand...

NOT in 4K! Read clearly - in 4K it's a straight crop from the centre of the sensor: No binning or skipping. It's pretty much like the ETC mode with less TC and more E.

Click to expand...

My comment was indeed for 1080p, but I didn't say so clearly, as I incorrectly assumed it would be obvious. So I guess I did read clearly but didn't speak clearly Mea culpa. I promise to be more explicit and clear next time, so that I don't arouse your ire.

JanMatthys said:

I think on paper Nikon has a strategic advantage, in that the V3 can Match the Sony RX 10, RX100, and Panasonic RZ1000 by simply offering an equivalent lens. Nikon can make a 24-120mm F/1.8-4.o to match the RX100, a 24-200mm F/2.8 and a 28-400mm F/2.8-4.0.

Click to expand...

Apart from the price issue, such bright zooms may be impossible to do on an ILC camera, at least with similar optical quality or relatively small size/weight. It is very clear that some of the recent fixed lens cameras are pushing the boundaries of lens design, if you can accept the compromise of a fixed zoom range that is offer you get a brighter/smaller/cheaper and possibly better quality lens. e.g. compare the lens on the Canon G1X II with what is available for m43 or APS-C cameras (with slightly smaller or bigger sensor size): there is nothing that even comes close.

JanMatthys said:

The big problem is Nikon's pricing; Panasonic is making a entire camera body with a state of the art 1" sensor , 4k video and a Leica designed lens 28-400mm F/2.8-4.0 for $899. The closest Nikon equivalent is the 10-100mm F4/-5.6 which sells for $550, paired with a V3 (assuming you can buy the body only) the price tag comes to $1,400!! If you're forced to buy it with the Kit lens the price then jumps to $1,700! Sorry but that just isn't competitive, in order to take advantage of the mirrorless design, Nikon needs to make equivalent fast zooms and price them competitively.

Click to expand...

I guess Panasonic will sell more of these 28-400 lenses than Nikon will sell cx70-300 lenses ;-)

Jorginho said:

Dimac said:

playForever8 said:

It looks quite impressive. The price is good with 25-400mm lens.

Click to expand...

nothing impressive at all.

4k needs almost nobody, just marketing crap

Click to expand...

It has 4K with 5 axis IBIS at 900 dollar with a capable sensor. Needing? You do not need a Nikon 1 or a DSLR. Great pictures were shot with film and manual focus.
The reviewers are clear and it should be clear that at that price it is quite impressive

Jorginho said:

iq most probably not better than RX10

Click to expand...

Did you look at the comparison in RAW? In somewhat higher ISO, it is much sharper in the corners. Noise etc is equal, but the lens might well be superior.

Jorginho said:

the cam will find buyers ofc, but it´s more or less only an alternative for other 1" cams

Click to expand...

It has DFD focus. Now, I have a GH4 on on that cam DFD focussing is very fast and accurate with fast moving subject. So may be it is the very first superzoom offering good AF-c.

It has a swiveling screen RX10 lacks. Really ideal for video especially, but also for shooting stills from difficult angles.

It has twice the reach of RX10, it costs 400 dollar less than the RX10.

All this combined makes for a compelling all in one package for quite a few users I think. We'll see...

Click to expand...

Agree, very compelling package if you like the FZ1000 lens range.

I'm looking at 1 inch cameras for capturing flying dragonflies (similar to BIF shots) and possibly other nature/wildlife stuff. The FZ1000 costs the same as a new Nikon 1 body with standard zoom (which I don't need), with FZ1000 you get that big 400mm equiv. zoom for free. For more than double the price I could buy a Nikon 1 V3 with the CX70-300, which means double the tele reach. However, if you don't really need that 300mm tele maximum the FZ1000 lens may be more attractive because it is faster.

The big question is if the Nikon 70-300 is higher quality (optically) and how the image quality (sensor quality) compares with Nikon 1.

And maybe the DFD AF and 4K video (8 MP 30 fps?) on FZ1000 is even better in practice than what Nikon 1 does for speed?

Kevin Omura said:

From the comparison pix the camera looks as big as the Canon T5i which is an aps-c dslr.

Not sure how Panasonic users of the FZ series are going to react. There was a lot of complaining when Panasonic veered from f2.8 across the board on these cameras. The FZ200 with 25-600 f2.8 is a great camera, and spec wise on the FZ1000 because of the big sensor it is quite amazing. But they couldn't keep the longer lens with constant aperture and that might become an issue with their customer base. Granted a lens for that sensor of those specs would be massive and cost a fortune.

Click to expand...

Panasonic will have to explain to FZ200 users that f/4 400mm equiv. on 1 inch sensor is better than f/2.8 400-600mm equiv. on a much smaller sensor. The one stop loss in aperture can be compensated with higher ISO (the 1 inch sensor should have more than one stop advantage for noise performance). A crop from FZ1000 at 400mm equiv. will probably have similar or even better detail than a crop from FZ200 at 600mm equiv. Assuming that the FZ1000 lens still has pretty good optical quality at the top of the zoom range...

Kevin Omura said:

If Nikon could get it in gear and get that 70-300 lens to market that could be a real game changer. Then fill out the lineup with a fast macro and have two distinct 'pro' bodies one based on the V3 design and one with similar specs to the V3 but in a V2 style body. Or perhaps come up with a battery grip as others have suggested for the V3 that feels like the V2's.

Click to expand...

The 70-300 has double the zoom reach, but the question is for how many customers this is important? It seems to me (but maybe I'm wrong) that this is mostly a 'birders' lens, and maybe for some types of sport. On FF DSLR, a 190-810mm lens is really a niche product.

If you look only at top end of the zoom range this is what you get:

Sony RX10: f/2.8 200mm equiv.: insufficient reach for most nature/wildlife/sports photography

Panasonic FZ1000: f/4 400mm equiv., double the zoom reach and one stop slower; for a lot less money than RX10, and probably sufficient reach for casual nature/wildlife/sports shooters.

Nikon 1 + CX70-300: f/5.6 810mm equiv.: double the zoom reach compared to FZ1000 but you lose about half a stop at 400mm equiv. And it is double the FZ1000 price ...

25-400 equivalent to full frame actually 9.25 - 148

Nikon is 189-810 equivalent

John Roy said:

I suspect I'll do the same with my V2. Depends on what the 70-300 is like, and no whisper of a review anywhere.

Click to expand...

....which range from 1.7 to 2.2x. The Olympus TCON17 is quite well regarded. It would be very interesting if something like this could make the lens on this new Panasonic into a 700 or 800mm effective lens while retaining the optical quality.

Of course, the actual quality of such a combo at this point is a complete crap-shoot.

MIKE1111 said:

25-400 equivalent to full frame actually 9.25 - 148

Nikon is 189-810 equivalent

Click to expand...

yes I know they have different equivalent focal length. But IMHO 25-400mm equiv. is FAR more useful for the general (nature/wildlife) shooter than 189-810 equiv., also because the FZ1000 is brighter in the 189-400mm equiv. range. The Nikon is great if 400mm equiv. is definitely too short for most of your shots.

dougjgreen1 said:

John Roy said:

I suspect I'll do the same with my V2. Depends on what the 70-300 is like, and no whisper of a review anywhere.

Click to expand...

....which range from 1.7 to 2.2x. The Olympus TCON17 is quite well regarded. It would be very interesting if something like this could make the lens on this new Panasonic into a 700 or 800mm effective lens while retaining the optical quality.

Of course, the actual quality of such a combo at this point is a complete crap-shoot.

Click to expand...

I have never seen a front mounted teleconverter that gives really good corner quality on such telezooms (and I have tried most of them in the past ...). Most of them also suffer from severe purple fringe in high contrast scenes, more sensitive to flare/backlighting etc. It might work in close to ideal lighting conditions when you only need the center of the frame sharp ...

For me just the size/weight of such teleconverters makes them unattractive on almost every current camera. For the same size/weight you could carry a superzoom camera and usually get better image quality at extreme tele (without the need to mount/unmount the converter and risk of damaging the lens mechanism).

technic said:

dougjgreen1 said:

John Roy said:

I suspect I'll do the same with my V2. Depends on what the 70-300 is like, and no whisper of a review anywhere.

Click to expand...

....which range from 1.7 to 2.2x. The Olympus TCON17 is quite well regarded. It would be very interesting if something like this could make the lens on this new Panasonic into a 700 or 800mm effective lens while retaining the optical quality.

Of course, the actual quality of such a combo at this point is a complete crap-shoot.

Click to expand...

I have never seen a front mounted teleconverter that gives really good corner quality on such telezooms (and I have tried most of them in the past ...). Most of them also suffer from severe purple fringe in high contrast scenes, more sensitive to flare/backlighting etc. It might work in close to ideal lighting conditions when you only need the center of the frame sharp ...

Click to expand...

Generally, what one is seeking in the case where these converters get used is not corner sharpness, but rather, more magnification of an object in the center. If the degradation is limited to a lack of sharpness in the corners, this is usually not a major issue. OTOH, if it's really severe color fringing, that's more problematic - and some of the better TCs can simply get away with causing the former, rather than the latter.

technic said:

For me just the size/weight of such teleconverters makes them unattractive on almost every current camera. For the same size/weight you could carry a superzoom camera and usually get better image quality at extreme tele (without the need to mount/unmount the converter and risk of damaging the lens mechanism).

Click to expand...

In my experience, these things are not that heavy - the camera in question already weighs nearly 2 pounds - and the aforementioned Olympus TCON17 is quite good if it mates well with the lens upon which it's mounted - and in any case, it would likely be better on a big sensor camera than the quite small-sensor super zooms are at 600mm+ extreme equivalent focal lengths.

dougjgreen1 said:

technic said:

dougjgreen1 said:

John Roy said:

I suspect I'll do the same with my V2. Depends on what the 70-300 is like, and no whisper of a review anywhere.

Click to expand...

....which range from 1.7 to 2.2x. The Olympus TCON17 is quite well regarded. It would be very interesting if something like this could make the lens on this new Panasonic into a 700 or 800mm effective lens while retaining the optical quality.

Of course, the actual quality of such a combo at this point is a complete crap-shoot.

Click to expand...

I have never seen a front mounted teleconverter that gives really good corner quality on such telezooms (and I have tried most of them in the past ...). Most of them also suffer from severe purple fringe in high contrast scenes, more sensitive to flare/backlighting etc. It might work in close to ideal lighting conditions when you only need the center of the frame sharp ...

Click to expand...

Generally, what one is seeking in the case where these converters get used is not corner sharpness, but rather, more magnification of an object in the center. If the degradation is limited to a lack of sharpness in the corners, this is usually not a major issue. OTOH, if it's really severe color fringing, that's more problematic - and some of the better TCs can simply get away with causing the former, rather than the latter.

Click to expand...

usually there are lots of problems outside the center, not just some loss of sharpness (which would indeed be OK for some subjects like birds). These converters worked fine when cameras had 2-4 MP resolution, but nowadays all kinds of trouble shows up in the outer areas and some of it can be quite distracting.

dougjgreen1 said:

dougjgreen1 said:

For me just the size/weight of such teleconverters makes them unattractive on almost every current camera. For the same size/weight you could carry a superzoom camera and usually get better image quality at extreme tele (without the need to mount/unmount the converter and risk of damaging the lens mechanism).

Click to expand...

In my experience, these things are not that heavy - the camera in question already weighs nearly 2 pounds - and the aforementioned Olympus TCON17 is quite good if it mates well with the lens upon which it's mounted - and in any case, it would likely be better on a big sensor camera than the quite small-sensor super zooms are at 600mm+ extreme equivalent focal lengths.

Click to expand...

With bigger lenses, border/corner quality gets more compromised; the smaller lenses (lenses for smaller sensor) use only the best part of the converter. I have used the TCON17 on many different cameras and although it is one of the better designs, it basically has the same problems as the others with CA, PF, loss of corner sharpness/micro-contrast etc. My experience is that some well designed superzooms (e.g. the Pana/Leica TZ series) offer very good image quality at full zoom in a very small package (smaller/lighter than a TCON), as long as there is sufficient light.

samfan said:

I like that 1" becomes a sort of standard for "smallish sensor". It is just right. 1/1.7" and 2/3 generally aren't quite there when it comes to achievable IQ and DOF isolation.

1" looks to be just good enough for small cameras for 'enthusiast enough' users who would, say 10 years ago, buy an advanced compact (and then promptly switch to a DSLR since the compacts were so crappy).

Now, people who want a small camera with 2 lenses - one fast normal zoom with a 24mm beginning, and one 300+mm tele faster than f/5.6, are, funnily enough, served by RX100 III and FZ1000 instead of N1.

Click to expand...

I have not handled the FZ1000, but the RX10, and that feels pretty much like carrying around my D600 with the 85/1.8 on, and the FZ1000 is of the same weight, and bulk. Not my favourite kind of weight; I prefer two lighter ones, like the mentioned RX100 III, and a N 1 with a 30-110, or the coming 70-300.

samfan said:

Now we need a 1" compact with a UWA lens, a 1" compact with a fixed 28mm eq prime and a 1" compact with a fixed fast 50mm eq prime

Click to expand...

I got into DSLRs, and MILCs, after having had my fill with dust problems with my beloved compacts (something you can't do anything about, yourself, without voiding guarantees, and risking even bigger problems). I'll never go back to a setup consisting of just compacts, that's for sure!