FZ1000 vs D5300 kit (bridge vs DSLR cheap lens)

The real counter to this argument would be if somehow Nikon would make faster DX glass, instead of a range of 'better' kit lenses with 'Costco Bundle' capabilities. Yes, I know I can mount fast Nikon FF glass, but while I pick up a lot of tele reach, wides become problematic, plus the occasional 'yes, it's F-mount, but it doesn't work with this, this, or that one' speed bump.

The real advantage is better/faster AF if that's important, bigger-sensored IQ, and interchangeable lenses. If you're pixel peeping, solved.

On the other hand, it ultimate IQ is not a consideration and you're not doing poster-sized prints, and you know what you're doing, the FZ would get really close if you play to its' strengths. And yes, I'm looking thru a great EVF, instead of squinting thru a cost-driven mirror-box prism thru slow max aperture lenses, certainly not the view I'd see thru a D810 with an f2 or 2.8 lens.

I own a similar camera (a Fujifilm XS-1) and am well pleased with that 'Swiss Army Camera' concept. I leave the house with the camera, a spare card and battery, and a dedicated Fuji flash. That's it, and I can go from almost-touching-the-front-element macros to 600mm tele reach just THAT fast. Amazing. That's traveling light. I'll be the first to tell you that a) no, it's not as good as a DSLR, and b) I really, really enjoy using it. Your results may vary.

The only comparison that counts is what suits you. Buy an FZ (or the Nikon), and if it's not what you thought, you can always go back later and get the other one.

Speedex Folder said:

The real counter to this argument would be if somehow Nikon would make faster DX glass,

Click to expand...

I'm certain Nikon (and Canon) wouldn't do that because 1.) it's more product to produce and inventory, and 2.) they want consumers to consider moving to more expensive FF bodies.

Bjorn_L said:

trekkeruss said:

Bjorn_L said:

There aren't many bridge to DSLR comparisons because such a comparison is pointless. The difference in capabilities is just too extreme. it would be the equivalent of road and track having head to head comparisons of a Fiat 500 and a Ferrari. The only thing they have in common is they are both cars from Italy and their names start with F.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, if the FZ1000 is a Fiat, why did you buy one (RX-10)?

Click to expand...

Because they have their uses.

Click to expand...

Thank You for acknowledging that ....

Bjorn_L said:

I sometimes use my RX10 as my 'in the trunk' camera. Meaning if I find myself someplace where I feel like taking a photo, I have something better than a P&S with me. And in a weather sealed body so I can record my son's sports games.

Click to expand...

And since it is water-sealed, (thus also better dirt/dust protected), I agree with that.

Bjorn_L said:

But the main use for my rx10 is video, where it is great. It has full-sensor read-out, high bit rate

So for my uses the better lens, weather sealing, and higher bit rate make the rx10 a better choice than a fz1000.

Click to expand...

But the 4K-video (of GH4 or FZ-1000 or Samsung NX-1 etc.) w/ FRAME-GRAB, (at any shutter-speed), could also be great for capturing "action" images of his sports.

And FZ-1000 would give you 600mm (equiv) for sports-movies.

Bjorn_L said:

I could have gotten a sealed lens for the gh3 instead, but the 35-100 was more expensive and produced about the same video quality. There would be a slight edge to the panasonic, but it would not have been as convenient since I would have to re-position the camera from time to time. This is not a big deal for stills, but not what I wanted in video.

My fiat to Ferrari comparison was limited by there not being any other closer cars.... I suppose I could have used a Mini Cooper and a BMW M3 as they are both owned by the same company, would have been a more accurate set of avatars.

Click to expand...

The NIKON 1 is the Mini-Cooper.

Speedex Folder said:

The real counter to this argument would be if somehow Nikon would make faster DX glass, instead of a range of 'better' kit lenses with 'Costco Bundle' capabilities. Yes, I know I can mount fast Nikon FF glass, but while I pick up a lot of tele reach, wides become problematic, plus the occasional 'yes, it's F-mount, but it doesn't work with this, this, or that one' speed bump.

The real advantage is better/faster AF if that's important,

Click to expand...

But better/faster applies mainly to "professional" level dSLR's, (D750/810, D4, etc.). This is a BEGINNERS forum and usually entry-level cameras.

And while (dSLR) PDAF is indeed faster, but (mirrorless) CDAF can be more accurate.

And mirrorless can offer more flexibility with focus-points selection via firm-ware, (or touch-screen).

Speedex Folder said:

bigger-sensored IQ, if you're pixel peeping,

Click to expand...

But BSI sensor and ETTR can somewhat equalize that.

Speedex Folder said:

and interchangeable lenses.

Click to expand...

YES ... especially if you want UWA or "fast" prime lenses.

Speedex Folder said:

On the other hand, it ultimate IQ is not a consideration and you're not doing poster-sized prints, and you know what you're doing, the FZ would get really close if you play to its' strengths.

Click to expand...

Yes ...

Speedex Folder said:

And yes, I'm looking thru a great EVF, instead of squinting thru a cost-driven mirror-box prism thru slow max aperture lenses,

Click to expand...

Exactly, the biggest advantage of "mirrorless".

Speedex Folder said:

certainly not the view I'd see thru a D810 with an f2 or 2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

And lots of $$$'s, larger size and heavier weight.

Speedex Folder said:

I own a similar camera (a Fujifilm XS-1) and am well pleased with that 'Swiss Army Camera' concept. I leave the house with the camera, a spare card and battery, and a dedicated Fuji flash. That's it, and I can go from almost-touching-the-front-element macros to 600mm tele reach just THAT fast. Amazing. That's traveling light. I'll be the first to tell you that a) no, it's not as good as a DSLR, and b) I really, really enjoy using it. Your results may vary.

The only comparison that counts is what suits you. Buy an FZ (or the Nikon), and if it's not what you thought, you can always go back later and get the other one.

Click to expand...

If you guys are so determined to ruin another beginners thread with arguments that are getting boring, I WILL put a stop to them permanently...

I am not sure here, but isn't the D5300 has HDR, panorama functions too? It might have less than the fz1000, but it should have most.

About macro: haven't tried fz1000 yet, but with every bridge I've felt that the working distance on reasonable macro photoes is just not feasible. 60% of the time you can't put a lens 3cm close to your subject. What are your experiences about this?

Well size is no problem for me. As you said, fz1000 lens is faster. But the APS-C is a lot bigger sensor, it allows for higher ISO which should compensate for it with the kit lens.

Also, d5300 should has higher and better AF, and even though fz1000 has higher fps, it should be more accurate.

Meerkato said:

Well size is no problem for me. As you said, fz1000 lens is faster. But the APS-C is a lot bigger sensor, it allows for higher ISO which should compensate for it with the kit lens.

Also, d5300 should has higher and better AF, and even though fz1000 has higher fps, it should be more accurate.

Click to expand...

Please do read the links I posted from DPR talking about equivalence and image noise.
If you are just talking about exposure on the long end, consider that the fz1000 is 1 stop faster aperture, but the d5300 has a around a 1.5 stop advantage in ISO and over a 2 stop advantage in DR. In daily shooting the DR difference will make more of a difference.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Chuxter:

You are confusing the OP again. Every camera except FF is going to require different focal-lengths to get the same "equivalent" FOV and using equivalents is an accepted practice.

Click to expand...

No, she was already confused or perhaps she knows better and was trying to confuse others. That you don't understand this is typical. :-(

What she did was to use the crop factor to convert the actual FL of the lens on the FZ1000 to FF; but then she didn't do that for the DX camera. She used the actual FL of the lens w/o any conversion. Thus, she was comparing the FZ1000 at 28-400mm w/ lenses for the D5300, using unconverted FLs! She also didn't do any research to find out what lenses were available.

I simply did the math correctly to show everyone that with a DX camera, it was quite possible to get a single lens that has a much wider FL range than w/ the FZ1000.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Your suggestions have slower f/stops requiring longer shutter speeds.

Click to expand...

That is true. I did not correct her re the aperture. As everybody knows, it is easy and cheap to design a wide zoom lens w/ a large max aperture for a small sensor camera. That doesn't make it good for some people who are discriminating about IQ. Other people find it a perfect compromise. I believe that it's good to have choices and don't like it when people claim that one compromise is better than another [for an OP].

PhotoTeach2 said:

And while they may be (2-way) stabilized, I suggest it does not compare to 5-way (w/ rotational-correction when pushing the shutter-button).

Click to expand...

Since nobody does accurate, objective tests of stabilization systems, you can claim whatever you want to. But it's anecdotal...

PhotoTeach2 said:

But the main advantage is MIRRORLESS and LEAF-shutter which allow many more features w/ the inherent limitations of mirror & focal-plane shutter.

Click to expand...

For many uses, that is true. But a dSLR is still better for some uses.

PhotoTeach2 said:

And while I agree OVF vs EVF is debateable, I much prefer EVF and especially think mirrorless/EVF is better for especially beginners but advanced also.

Click to expand...

I like eVF too. But again and again and again, you revert to being a Panasonic shill by listing features that the FZ1000 has. Do you not understand that the D5300 has features that the FZ1000 doesn't? I'm not going to reciprocate and be a Nikon shill...

Instead I'll mention some issues that the FZ1000 has that I find unacceptable:

• It is a typical P&S camera, but huge
• The lens is not removable
• The FL range is biased toward the long end; I would prefer a 24mm to 380mm range
• There is no acceptable way to add a WA conversion lens [both IQ and cost]
• The camera can't focus and zoom at the same time
• The sensor is too small, thus the IQ is not much better than my first camera, the Coolpix 5700 [w/ a 2/3" sensor] in good light
• The macro capability is not good enough [again, my 5700 is better]

Bjorn_L said:

chuxter said:

I agree that the FZ1000 is an interesting camera. But the way that you and others spin it is wrong and shameful.

Click to expand...

Too true. I don't get why a select few care enough what others shoot with to put such effort in to spin.

Click to expand...

Sadly, I'm guilty of spending far too much time countermanding the shills... :-(

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

chuxter said:

I agree that the FZ1000 is an interesting camera. But the way that you and others spin it is wrong and shameful.

Click to expand...

Too true. I don't get why a select few care enough what others shoot with to put such effort in to spin.

--
See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

Click to expand...

Why do you ???

And Chuxter and Peter Harvey ???

And my main point is that "mirrorless' is not only the future, but best today ... (for especially BEGINNERS -- and this is a "beginners" forum).

Click to expand...

Joe, that is just YOUR opinion. Why do you shove it down the throats of everyone? Rarely do you have a balanced post! You are a Religious shill...you should never discuss Religion and Politics...

Bjorn_L said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Bjorn_L said:

chuxter said:

I agree that the FZ1000 is an interesting camera. But the way that you and others spin it is wrong and shameful.

Click to expand...

Too true. I don't get why a select few care enough what others shoot with to put such effort in to spin.

--
See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

Click to expand...

Why do you ???

And Chuxter and Peter Harvey ???

And my main point is that "mirrorless' is not only the future, but best today ... (for especially BEGINNERS -- and this is a "beginners" forum).

Click to expand...

Unlike you I almost never recommend what I shoot. Unlike you I own several different cameras and I am capable of understanding their relative strengths and weakness. There is no such thing as one size fits all. Pretending that because people are beginners it is ok to tell these fantasies does not make them true.

Click to expand...

Amen. I can't imagine advising a "beginner" to get a D810!!! Or any of the other [old] camera I have.

Bjorn_L said:

Meerkato said:

The FZ1000 look pretty good, reasonably big 1" sensor, good lens, 16x zoom, good all-around camera. However, it is pretty expensive for a bridge camera. The Nikon D5300+18-55 II +55-300 kit is only very slightly more expensive. So you get a fast APS-C DSLR, basicly the same reach, and I am not sure if there is a downside.

So of course, if you go DSLR, you would also like to invest in high quality fast lenses, but these kit lenses are pretty good nowadays, and I feel that even if they are the entry lenses, still should perform better than a small bridge one.

What do you think? Am I missing something? Is the FZ1000 better optically?

I know, with DSLR you always have the opportunity to get more lenses and improve your gear. My point is not this, but that if you want what the FZ1000 can offer, wouldn't it be better to go the path I mentioned?

There are tons of Canon vs Nikon and mirrorless vs DSLR comparisons, but there is no bridge vs DSLR or 1" vs APS-C.

Click to expand...

It is a question of quality vs convenience. The DSLR will give you better quality, the bridge camera is more convenient.

Read this for information relevant to your question:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

The fz1000 is not better optically. Long mega-zoom lenses like the FZ1000s involves more compromises. Also the lens is not very fast, as it does not let in all that much light. The f/4 on the long end is equivalent to f/7.2 on he d5300. The d5300 lets in more than 3 times as much light.

If you want a DSLR and plan to use it as a bridge camera, I suggest you get a body only and either the 18-300 from Nikon or 16-300 from Tamron.

There aren't many bridge to DSLR comparisons because such a comparison is pointless. The difference in capabilities is just too extreme. it would be the equivalent of road and track having head to head comparisons of a Fiat 500 and a Ferrari. The only thing they have in common is they are both cars from Italy and their names start with F.

Click to expand...

The 4-letter word that you utter after owning either a Ford, Fiat, or Ferrari also starts w/ "F". :-0

That the camera in question also starts w/ the letter "F' is poignant... ;-)

Meerkato said:

I am not sure here, but isn't the D5300 has HDR, panorama functions too? It might have less than the fz1000, but it should have most.

About macro: haven't tried fz1000 yet, but with every bridge I've felt that the working distance on reasonable macro photoes is just not feasible. 60% of the time you can't put a lens 3cm close to your subject. What are your experiences about this?

Click to expand...

The closest focusing distance depends on focal-length, in macro-mode it can focus as close as 1" in wide-angle and 3.3' at (400mm) tele.

At 43mm the image is a horizontal-width of about 3.5" and (1:1 equivalent) 1.5" in macro-zoom mode.

Meerkato said:

Well size is no problem for me. As you said, fz1000 lens is faster. But the APS-C is a lot bigger sensor, it allows for higher ISO which should compensate for it with the kit lens.

Click to expand...

YES, it has a bigger sensor and can have better IQ (IF EXPOSED OPTIMALLY).

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/81...e-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise

Remember that with dSLR, you have to "trust" your cameras metering system, which can work OK in a average (18%) reflective scene. But most often is not correct in white/black or individually lit subjects.

(ALL) mirrorless cameras, (not just FZ1000), allow WB preview and over-exposure warnings to more easily/faster allow ETTR which can optimize IQ. They provide direct visual feedback when you want to make Expose-Compensation or manual-exposure adjustments.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/83...o-the-right-using-the-cameras-highlight-alert

Using ETTR, I get acceptable results up to ISO 6400, (and have shot at ISO 25,600).

And then there is instant Image-Retention to allow immediate verification of pose/smile/eyes to determine if a reshoot is necessary.

Meerkato said:

Also, d5300 should has higher and better AF,

Click to expand...

While "pro" level dSLR absolutely has better AF "tracking", I am not sure that applies to lower-level dSLR's.

PDAF is indeed known for better AF-tracking, CDAF is more accurate. (and FZ-1000 uses a new-technology form of CDAF known as DFD)

I honestly can't state how it compares to entry-level dSLR's.

But another very important point is that I have auto-focused by light of full-MOON, (-4 EV).

Meerkato said:

and even though fz1000 has higher fps, it should be more accurate.

Click to expand...

yes ... it has much higher fps,

but the FZ-1000 should be more "accurate". (and more flexible cause focus-points are selectable, and even has "pinpoint" AF (which can be used w/ animals hidden within brush).

The FZ1000 does 4K, the Nikon doesn't.

I bought the FZ1000 because it shoots 4K video. It is also a good allround travel camera.

Meerkato said:

About macro: haven't tried fz1000 yet, but with every bridge I've felt that the working distance on reasonable macro photoes is just not feasible. 60% of the time you can't put a lens 3cm close to your subject. What are your experiences about this?

Click to expand...

This is generally true. What happens is that with long-range zoom lenses, the easiest way to get macro is to run the lens at wide angle; that way, you don't have to move the focusing elements too much to get close focus. But, as you have seen, this forces you to work very close to the lens. It is, however, what you're stuck with when you can't change the lens.

With interchangeable lens cameras, you can get a lens designed for macro. These are almost always fixed-focal length lenses but they can go to high magnification at longer distances. So a DSLR or mirrorless with a macro lens is much easier to work with for macro because you can get some light on what you're shooting. The downside is you need to buy a separate lens for this purpose.

WOW ... 5 lengthy posts in a row, that could be a new record for you.

I will only respond to this part of one because it has so much incorrect information to confuse the OP.

chuxter said:

Do you not understand that the D5300 has features that the FZ1000 doesn't?

Click to expand...

And why can't you name those "features" ??? (Please help me understand.)

chuxter said:

Instead I'll mention some issues that the FZ1000 has that I find unacceptable:

• 1. It is a typical P&S camera,
• 2. The lens is not removable
• 3. The FL range is biased toward the long end; I would prefer a 24mm to 380mm range
• 4. There is no acceptable way to add a WA conversion lens [both IQ and cost]
• 5. The camera can't focus and zoom at the same time
• 6. The sensor is too small, thus the IQ is not much better than my first camera, the Coolpix 5700 [w/ a 2/3" sensor] in good light
• 7. The macro capability is not good enough [again, my 5700 is better]

Click to expand...

1.) P&S were known for unacceptable AF times, no eye-level VF, no "manual" controls, no advanced "features", w/ unacceptable IQ from older/small sensors.

Do ANY of those apply to new-technology "bridge" cameras ???

2.) Not a factor if the lens has wide-enough zoom to cover the intended purpose.

3.) You only added 1-mm to its WA. (but for the record I wish it had 20mm WA start)

4.) $80, much cheaper than any other UWA would be for dSLR.

5.) Most cameras can't. (especially if using non-"center" focusing points)

6. & 7.) That could be provably wrong.

********

I apologize for even responding to this absurd post.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Meerkato said:

I am not sure here, but isn't the D5300 has HDR, panorama functions too? It might have less than the fz1000, but it should have most.

About macro: haven't tried fz1000 yet, but with every bridge I've felt that the working distance on reasonable macro photoes is just not feasible. 60% of the time you can't put a lens 3cm close to your subject. What are your experiences about this?

Click to expand...

The closest focusing distance depends on focal-length, in macro-mode it can focus as close as 1" in wide-angle and 3.3' at (400mm) tele.

At 43mm the image is a horizontal-width of about 3.5" and (1:1 equivalent) 1.5" in macro-zoom mode.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Well size is no problem for me. As you said, fz1000 lens is faster. But the APS-C is a lot bigger sensor, it allows for higher ISO which should compensate for it with the kit lens.

Click to expand...

YES, it has a bigger sensor and can have better IQ (IF EXPOSED OPTIMALLY).

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/81...e-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise

Remember that with dSLR, you have to "trust" your cameras metering system, which can work OK in a average (18%) reflective scene. But most often is not correct in white/black or individually lit subjects.

Click to expand...

Horse hockey! Joe, it's been years since you actually investigated modern dSLRs. They are better than you remember from the 20th century! IF you know how to select the various metering options, you can get quite accurate results.

PhotoTeach2 said:

(ALL) mirrorless cameras, (not just FZ1000), allow WB preview and over-exposure warnings to more easily/faster allow ETTR which can optimize IQ. They provide direct visual feedback when you want to make Expose-Compensation or manual-exposure adjustments.

Click to expand...

Horse hockey! Joe, there is no way to use an LCD to preview WB. The color accuracy is simply not there! This is a fantasy that some people have and spread to the unwashed masses. Simarly, an LCD can't be used to accurately preview exposure; using a histogram is MUCH better.

PhotoTeach2 said:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/83...o-the-right-using-the-cameras-highlight-alert

Using ETTR, I get acceptable results up to ISO 6400, (and have shot at ISO 25,600).

And then there is instant Image-Retention to allow immediate verification of pose/smile/eyes to determine if a reshoot is necessary.

Click to expand...

No camera is instantaneous or immediate. Quit exaggerating! The truth is that the FZ1000 and many other P&S cameras allow the photographer to "chimp" through the eVF after the camera has rendered the image as an RGB. It happens quickly, but not instantaneously.

True mirror-less cameras [not P&S] do this too. Many of them have big sensors and take much better pictures than the FZ1000.

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Also, d5300 should has higher and better AF,

Click to expand...

While "pro" level dSLR absolutely has better AF "tracking", I am not sure that applies to lower-level dSLR's.

PDAF is indeed known for better AF-tracking, CDAF is more accurate. (and FZ-1000 uses a new-technology form of CDAF known as DFD)

I honestly can't state how it compares to entry-level dSLR's.

Click to expand...

Finally, you said something true. ;-)

PhotoTeach2 said:

But another very important point is that I have auto-focused by light of full-MOON, (-4 EV).

PhotoTeach2 said:

and even though fz1000 has higher fps, it should be more accurate.

Click to expand...

yes ... it has much higher fps,

but the FZ-1000 should be more "accurate". (and more flexible cause focus-points are selectable, and even has "pinpoint" AF (which can be used w/ animals hidden within brush).

Click to expand...

You say "should". Is this your belief or do you really know what you are talking about?

Leonard Migliore said:

Meerkato said:

About macro: haven't tried fz1000 yet, but with every bridge I've felt that the working distance on reasonable macro photoes is just not feasible. 60% of the time you can't put a lens 3cm close to your subject. What are your experiences about this?

Click to expand...

This is generally true. What happens is that with long-range zoom lenses, the easiest way to get macro is to run the lens at wide angle; that way, you don't have to move the focusing elements too much to get close focus. But, as you have seen, this forces you to work very close to the lens. It is, however, what you're stuck with when you can't change the lens.

With interchangeable lens cameras, you can get a lens designed for macro. These are almost always fixed-focal length lenses but they can go to high magnification at longer distances. So a DSLR or mirrorless with a macro lens is much easier to work with for macro because you can get some light on what you're shooting. The downside is you need to buy a separate lens for this purpose.

Click to expand...

I'd add that a "true" macro lens is symmetrical [it works the same if it is turned around], has a very flat field [essential when photographing flat subjects, like documents, but less important when photographing 3D subjects, like flowers and insects], and has VERY high resolution. These are not true of a zoom lens on a P&S camera.

Leonard Migliore said:

--
Leonard Migliore

Click to expand...

*sigh*

okay, i admit it - i left out the word "equivalent". to an inexperienced photographer, the bottom line is you can zoom pretty far with the FZ1000, regardless of crop factor or actual numbers. to zoom as far with the nikon, you'll need a fairly heavy lens and it won't be cheap.

btw, i don't own the FZ1000. i did rent it, and found it to be a versatile camera and fun to use with a useable zoom range, fast autofocus, easy to use controls and decent lower light performance. most of that will also apply to the nikon, which will probably have better lower light performance unless you're using a really slow lens.