FZ-1000 surfing shoot help - bad settings or the camera?

alcelc · Apr 26, 2015

Brownie1010 said:
Yep Bassy, I set the focus region manually (I forget the exact menu navigation path) to be a small centred rectangle, because if its bigger, the camera can focus on the lip or shoulder of the wave (if you are looking along it) and then definitely the surfer will be out of focus. Ideally, I would also like to set a higher f-stop, to ensure the depth of field is wider, but that's not possible on this camera of course (f4 max). But, I think, its not a depth of field issue (I looked at some DoF apps and it didn't seem to be the answer ...).

Cheers, Brownie.

Hi Brownie, before hand, why a PL was used? If only for lens protection an UV filter would be more than sufficient. If your PL filter had been properly set, theoretically you should be able to capture a deep blue sky and much better saturated images than your samples. But it would reduce incoming light and so slowing down your shutter as well as faster f/stop would be needed (in this respect you were constraint by the max of f/4).

if you are looking for more DoF for a wider range of in-focus distance, you should shoot at f/8 or smaller but not the fastest of f/4. Although a 1" sensor + f/4 already would offer a deep DoF, a slower f/stop always gives your more.

As for the fast action of the sport, a combination of fast SS (freeze the action) and small f/stop (deeper DoF) trading off for nosier higher ISO would be unavoidable. Fortunately as the lighting condition generally would be good for beach activities, shadow noise might not be out of control.

I would also shoot at burst mode and take 3~4 images every time for higher hitting rate. I personally prefer to shoot at S-AF, single smallest focus box at the center since it would offer us the fastest and most accurate AF (if AF could be locked on the target) than a dslr. DFD of FZ1000 was said to be very good for CAF but I don't have the experience to comment on it.

As from the samples posted, most of them were trended to have been washed out. Wishing you were not shoot on the totally automatic modes like P or iA. Under the very high contrast beach+sea+wave+beach under sun, your camera might easily be fooled by the scene and manual override (exposure compensation) would be needed.

For longer range shooting: surfer in the sea, it might easily be affected by the atmospheric elements in between you and your far away target. We basically couldn't do much about it. However, similar was seen on the seaweed. It should largely be caused by over-exposure. I would set EC to -1/3ev ~ -2/3ev to improve the saturation/ contrast. In fact when adjusting the EC, you should be able to see how much adjustment would be enough for the best exposure before actual shooting. BTW, as other said, they were OOF.

alcelc · Apr 26, 2015

As trog100 remarked, they were not good. Unbelievable high noisy level at ISO100 for FZ150. It was also not good for that of FZ1000 but for a 1" sensor at ISO800, it should be within reasonable range. Both images were OOF under 100% view.

Had you noted that both camera were doing in very different way of their exposure? FZ1000 used ISO800, 1/1000" and f/4 whereas FZ150 used ISO100, 1/2000" and f/4.8. As a result, the image from FZ1000 looked much brighter than that of FZ150. For the setting, it seems that the slightly darkened image looks more please to the eye. If FZ1000 could use similar perimeters, the exposure would possibly be similar having a more cleaner images from FZ1000.

Overall, the 2 samples were looking better than you first batch because of a more even lighting condition (rain and over cast day?) and better shooting angle (not shooting directly toward the light source).

Edit: read somewhere in your post concerning the blown out of the wave. Under such scene, if you reduce the exposure to preserve more detail on the wave (highlight), that means that you're going to darken the other part of the scene. Nothing can do with it.

Moreover, bracketing would only be possible on still object. No matter how fast your shutter speed would be, the 2nd and 3rd (or the 4th and 5th) shots for the bracketing would see your target, the surfers been moved for a long way. Upon HDR, you would expect a triple image of the surfer as well as a blurry waves.... Forget bracketing for any action shooting.

GeraldW · Apr 26, 2015

Brownie,

Something is very wrong here. Your comparison shot with the FZ150 has the following EXIF results:

FZ150 1/2000 f/4,8 ISO 100

FZ1K 1/1000 f/4 ISO 800

The shutter speed is twice as long as the FZ150's, so more exposure by 1 stop.

The f/# on the FZ1K is about 1/2 stop faster, so again, more light.

The ISO at 800 is a full three stops higher, so that's still more light.

The FZ1K is exposing 4.5 stops more than the FZ150. That should cause a totally blown out scene. The two images, however, can't be more that 1/3 to 2/3 stop different. To me that implies something is absorbing a lot of light on the way into the camera. The polarizing filter can absorb 2 stops; but you had that off. An internal neutral density filter would absorb 3 stops; but the FZ1000 doesn't have one.

Very puzzling.

GeraldW · Apr 26, 2015

Brownie,

I just went back and looked at your original post. The first wide angle shot was at ISO 125, f/5, and 1/2000. That looks about right for the scene.

The sea weed, shot at a longer focal length was at ISO 640, totally inappropriate for the conditions.

And the two surfer shots were at ISO 400 and 500.

The lens does get slower by 1 stop as it zooms in; but not enough to affect things. The sea weed should be exposed similarly to the wide angle shot. So, it appears to me that something is happening internally, as you zoom in.

My advice, find a well lighted building wall with some kind of focus target on it - a brick wall is perfect. Soot the wall in P mode and at a range of focal lengths. Then in playback, check the EXIF data. You can show details in playback by pressing the DISP button. Under those controlled conditions, the exposure should not change much.

Rodger1943 · Apr 26, 2015

GeraldW said:
Brownie,

Something is very wrong here. Your comparison shot with the FZ150 has the following EXIF results:

FZ150 1/2000 f/4,8 ISO 100

FZ1K 1/1000 f/4 ISO 800

The shutter speed is twice as long as the FZ150's, so more exposure by 1 stop.

The f/# on the FZ1K is about 1/2 stop faster, so again, more light.

The ISO at 800 is a full three stops higher, so that's still more light.

The FZ1K is exposing 4.5 stops more than the FZ150. That should cause a totally blown out scene. The two images, however, can't be more that 1/3 to 2/3 stop different. To me that implies something is absorbing a lot of light on the way into the camera. The polarizing filter can absorb 2 stops; but you had that off. An internal neutral density filter would absorb 3 stops; but the FZ1000 doesn't have one.

Very puzzling.

GodSpeaks · Apr 28, 2015

1: Shoot RAW not jpg. RAW will allow you to adjust shadow and highlights much better than you can on a jpg. You can if you prefer shoot RAW + JPG.

2: Prefocus and remove AF from the shutter release.

You can move AF On to the rear button and deactivate it on the shutter. Then prefocus on something in the distance to set infinity focus on the lens. Then when you shoot, AF will not be activated by pressing the shutter release.

Hope that helps.

axlotl · Apr 29, 2015

Hi Brownie, You need to systematically figure out where the problems lies. Your original posted surfing pictures are a) unsharp and b) overexposed.

Did removing the pola fix the incorrect exposure problem ? If not have you inadvertently set + exposure compensation somehow ?

Check the lens at FL400mm on a static subject with tripod, a tree or similar with clear air between the camera and the subject. Make sure the lens is focussing OK and if so if static subjects are sharp.

See where that takes you.

Good luck

Andrew

trog100 · Apr 29, 2015

i think there is something odd going on with the FZ1000 mine can produce very good colourful detailed images..

it can (for reasons as yet fully unknown to me) produce some pretty cr-p ones.. i think its a combination of lens flare and way the camera processes its images..

give it something to work with and it does a grand job.. add in a bit of side lighting which i think causes lens flare and it does a poor job..

i think the surfing images are side lighting lens flare plus haze plus spray and the camera isnt even getting a focus.. the end result is a total mess..

the large lens and smaller sensor need the right conditions to work their magic.. maybe the surfing images are about as far away form the right conditions as you can get..

a much longer lens hood would help it.. the one that comes with the camera is on the short side.. made more to neatly fit the camera than function as a lens hood..

i recon its lens flare.. the camera (large lens) dosnt like side lighting.. but as yet i am not sure..

trog

Brownie1010 · Apr 29, 2015

alcelc said:
As trog100 remarked, they were not good. Unbelievable high noisy level at ISO100 for FZ150. It was also not good for that of FZ1000 but for a 1" sensor at ISO800, it should be within reasonable range. Both images were OOF under 100% view.

Yes, the OOF is the main problem ... ISO I reckon I can fix with some EV experimentation and a lens hood (which needs to go back on, and maybe get a longer one).

alcelc said:
Had you noted that both camera were doing in very different way of their exposure? FZ1000 used ISO800, 1/1000" and f/4 whereas FZ150 used ISO100, 1/2000" and f/4.8. As a result, the image from FZ1000 looked much brighter than that of FZ150. For the setting, it seems that the slightly darkened image looks more please to the eye. If FZ1000 could use similar perimeters, the exposure would possibly be similar having a more cleaner images from FZ1000.

This is a mystery to me ... same conditions, same camera family and firmware algorithms ??

alcelc said:
Overall, the 2 samples were looking better than you first batch because of a more even lighting condition (rain and over cast day?) and better shooting angle (not shooting directly toward the light source).

yes, totally overcast, and in the afternoon, so no sun on the lens ...

alcelc said:
Edit: read somewhere in your post concerning the blown out of the wave. Under such scene, if you reduce the exposure to preserve more detail on the wave (highlight), that means that you're going to darken the other part of the scene. Nothing can do with it.

yes, I need to experiment once I get in focus shots ...

alcelc said:
Moreover, bracketing would only be possible on still object. No matter how fast your shutter speed would be, the 2nd and 3rd (or the 4th and 5th) shots for the bracketing would see your target, the surfers been moved for a long way. Upon HDR, you would expect a triple image of the surfer as well as a blurry waves.... Forget bracketing for any action shooting.

Yes, you are of course correct ... a silly idea from me.

Cheers! Brownie.

Brownie1010 · Apr 29, 2015

GeraldW said:
Brownie,

Something is very wrong here. Your comparison shot with the FZ150 has the following EXIF results:

FZ150 1/2000 f/4,8 ISO 100

FZ1K 1/1000 f/4 ISO 800

The shutter speed is twice as long as the FZ150's, so more exposure by 1 stop.

The f/# on the FZ1K is about 1/2 stop faster, so again, more light.

The ISO at 800 is a full three stops higher, so that's still more light.

The FZ1K is exposing 4.5 stops more than the FZ150. That should cause a totally blown out scene. The two images, however, can't be more that 1/3 to 2/3 stop different. To me that implies something is absorbing a lot of light on the way into the camera. The polarizing filter can absorb 2 stops; but you had that off. An internal neutral density filter would absorb 3 stops; but the FZ1000 doesn't have one.

Very puzzling.

--
Jerry

Jerry, I agree. The apparent physics don't stack up.

The question is: is the ISO difference a side-effect of the root problem, or not. I'm thinking that the over-exposure issues are really my fault, and once I properly protect the lens from the sun, and under-expose as other have suggested, I can fix it. The lack of focussing performance is another issue.

I have now returned the camera under warranty, so the legal/commercial warfare has begun.

Cheers, Brownie.

Brownie1010 · Apr 29, 2015

axlotl said:
Hi Brownie, You need to systematically figure out where the problems lies. Your original posted surfing pictures are a) unsharp and b) overexposed.

I agree. And even when I take single shots of say, one of the boys leaving that water and walking up the beach, I will get photos that are OOF across the whole image (i.e. not an DOF issue). It seems that despite setting the half-shutter override to NOT take a photo UNLESS it is in focus, just doesn't work in some circumstances. And it takes one anyway ... maybe this is what is happening in burst mode too. I would like that setting to be a "hard" setting - it absolutely will not take a photo unles the DFD signal says the image is in focus. I suspect it doesn't ... or not always.

axlotl said:
Did removing the pola fix the incorrect exposure problem ? If not have you inadvertently set + exposure compensation somehow ?

Yes, the last shoot was without the polariser (and Inca one BTW, a spot special from JB Hifi for $10, the reason why I grabbed it instead of buying a UV one, which I usually buy). It's gone in the drawer until I get this sorted out.

As the EV adjustment, as in another reply, I have never really played with this. Fat finger syndrome is always a possibility, but I don't think so ...

axlotl said:
Check the lens at FL400mm on a static subject with tripod, a tree or similar with clear air between the camera and the subject. Make sure the lens is focussing OK and if so if static subjects are sharp.

I have now taken the camera back to Digital Camera Warehouse (hope it is OK to say that), and the warranty battle has commenced. I cited all the expert opinion from this forum to bolster my case

. The counter-guy definitely knew who DPReview were

, but didn't tremble, as I half-expected him to ...

If they, and then the Panasonic warranty repairer say "no fault found" and try to charge me $80 to hear that summation ... then I'll need to consider my options. And, if I get the camera back in between, I will be looking to produce some static tele focus test shots. Is there an internationally recognised test card for this? Rather than shooting a tree in the backyard, which could get me in trouble with the Greens.

This of course says nothing on the real issue: which is the ability of the camera to, or not, obtain and hold focus in ATC mode, and during bursts, as advertised. And to at least a better degree say, than an FZ-150, a camera which is a generation earlier and can be bought for about half the price.

You can see that I am reaching for the Trade Practices Act and heading for the Consumer Tribunal ... unfortunately, because I really like the camera, after lugging Canon+ lens sets around for years. And the speed and accuracy of the focussing system, with DFD etc. was a major factor in deciding to buy it. It was to be my "final" camera, except for updates, which I won't be able to resist ...

axlotl said:
See where that takes you.

Good luck

Andrew

And thank you for commenting/advising, Andrew, the ergonomics master !

. Love your site and the information you freely provide to us all. Cheers, Brownie.

alcelc · Apr 29, 2015

Dear Brownie1010, would we consider that you might have push a bit too much on the lovely FZ1000?

AF tracking of fast moving target, specially on non-linear movement, would still be the Achilles Heel of most CDAF (although DFD has been added) camera. In fact, shooting with a long tele would be a demanding job not only for a FZ1000, it would also be a challenge for a pro DSLR with such long tele.

I believe AF of FZ1000 should be more than enough for most general shooting. OOF might not be an issue of FZ1000.

Try to shoot with target in closer distance (reduce uncertainty like haze/pollution in the air etc), look at the good real time WYSIWYG live view evf/LCD and trust you eye to set the appropriate exposure compensation to your like instead of solely relying on the automatic function, you could definitely obtain excellent pictures from the lovely camera.

Brownie1010 · Apr 29, 2015

trog100 said:
i think there is something odd going on with the FZ1000 mine can produce very good colourful detailed images..

it can (for reasons as yet fully unknown to me) produce some pretty cr-p ones.. i think its a combination of lens flare and way the camera processes its images..

give it something to work with and it does a grand job.. add in a bit of side lighting which i think causes lens flare and it does a poor job..

i think the surfing images are side lighting lens flare plus haze plus spray and the camera isnt even getting a focus.. the end result is a total mess..

the large lens and smaller sensor need the right conditions to work their magic.. maybe the surfing images are about as far away form the right conditions as you can get..

a much longer lens hood would help it.. the one that comes with the camera is on the short side.. made more to neatly fit the camera than function as a lens hood..

i recon its lens flare.. the camera (large lens) dosnt like side lighting.. but as yet i am not sure..

trog

Trog, I agree - some of the shots are wonderful. Everything you would expect from the lens and the sensor. And others are not even in focus, anywhere in the frame.

I am less inclined to think it is haze. Axalotyl has posted test photos discussing the haze, or air movement issue in sunny Aussie conditions. Most of my shoots are taken in the early morning, to avoid the morning winds that develop by say, 9:30 am because it blows out the surf, creates spray. The haze effect creates irregular soft areas across the image - mine lack detail across the whole field ...

And finally, yes, I need a decent lens hood ... if I decide to persevere with this camera, which is not a certainty ...

Cheers, Brownie.

Brownie1010 · Apr 29, 2015

alcelc said:
Dear Brownie1010, would we consider that you might have push a bit too much on the lovely FZ1000?

AF tracking of fast moving target, specially on non-linear movement, would still be the Achilles Heel of most CDAF (although DFD has been added) camera. In fact, shooting with a long tele would be a demanding job not only for a FZ1000, it would also be a challenge for a pro DSLR with such long tele.

I believe AF of FZ1000 should be more than enough for most general shooting. OOF might not be an issue of FZ1000.

Try to shoot with target in closer distance (reduce uncertainty like haze/pollution in the air etc), look at the good real time WYSIWYG live view evf/LCD and trust you eye to set the appropriate exposure compensation to your like instead of solely relying on the automatic function, you could definitely obtain excellent pictures from the lovely camera.

Alcelc, gonna diagree

. One of the posters in this forum, gets great shot of action just as fast (the wind-surfers, in Holland, I think) and he is using i.Zoom at long lens values, and shooting in JPEG. I am shooting in RAW, and confining to 400mm optical.

I expect DFD to do better, and its one of the reasons I upgraded from the FZ-150. And bottom line, the FZ-100 doesn't focus properly in many less demanding circumstances, as others have posted, and I have experienced, just taking photos of people walking on the beach.

As for taking closer photos ... the damn surfers have a habit of spending hours sitting around, and the suddenly catching waves, all from outside the break line about 300m out ... and they refuse to languish inshore where I could get at them better. Its most inconvenient!

.

Anyway, I use the EVF exclusively now, as I can scrunch into it, and block the ambient light, avoiding LCD wash-out. And hey, how much better is the EVF on the FZ-100 than the FZ-150 ... horrible in comparison ... and as for EV adjustment for 1 to 3 thirds underexposure - its on my experiment list.

Cheers, Brownie.

Brownie1010 · Apr 29, 2015

GodSpeaks said:
1: Shoot RAW not jpg. RAW will allow you to adjust shadow and highlights much better than you can on a jpg. You can if you prefer shoot RAW + JPG.

2: Prefocus and remove AF from the shutter release.

You can move AF On to the rear button and deactivate it on the shutter. Then prefocus on something in the distance to set infinity focus on the lens. Then when you shoot, AF will not be activated by pressing the shutter release.

Hope that helps.

GodSpeaks · Apr 29, 2015

Brownie1010 said:
GodSpeaks said:

1: Shoot RAW not jpg. RAW will allow you to adjust shadow and highlights much better than you can on a jpg. You can if you prefer shoot RAW + JPG.

2: Prefocus and remove AF from the shutter release.

You can move AF On to the rear button and deactivate it on the shutter. Then prefocus on something in the distance to set infinity focus on the lens. Then when you shoot, AF will not be activated by pressing the shutter release.

Hope that helps.

Click to expand...

Brian Wadie · Apr 29, 2015

Brownie1010 said:
GodSpeaks said:

1: Shoot RAW not jpg. RAW will allow you to adjust shadow and highlights much better than you can on a jpg. You can if you prefer shoot RAW + JPG.

2: Prefocus and remove AF from the shutter release.

You can move AF On to the rear button and deactivate it on the shutter. Then prefocus on something in the distance to set infinity focus on the lens. Then when you shoot, AF will not be activated by pressing the shutter release.

Hope that helps.

Click to expand...

jonbev · Apr 29, 2015

I cannot understand why you haven't shown us any samples other than surfing, how anyone can evaluate the camera without a variety of examples is beyond me.

RandTx · Apr 29, 2015

Brownie1010 said:
RandTx said:

IDK exactly. but would suggest trying a bit of 4K photo mode video for that. could be it will auto focus and expose better (continuously) than it can in burst or single shots.

then an in camera still capture from video might give some clues to exposure if it turns out better. that you could then use in photo mode.

either way I imagine the camera might want to focus on the wave rather than the surfer, but in video should at least every number of frames focus on the suffer. vs waves that might be moving so fast they would blur even if they were the focus target.

Click to expand...

Hi, RandTx, I took some early 4k video, and it turned out fine. But, I have noticed that the zoomed-in video mode also has difficulty keeping focus on the surfer. The focus mechanism appears to "hunt" (cycling focus around the "real" focus) as it tries to focus on the moving wave. If I zoom out, the problem goes away, so I think its too responsive, and burst mode has the same issue, in that some shore-line spray will, between frames, cause the focal plane to be shifted by 200m !! There should be an available slew-rate limiter setting, to allow the averaging out signals that cause these dramatic focal depth shifts.

But maybe I know more about this camera now, and should revisit the experiment. I'll post back, cheers, Brownie.

that focus hunting is a problem with this camera. it seems to do better with a large one area. while praying that it focuses on what you want it too. That being a reason it might do better in video as I assume it evaluates what the user is panning on to pick focus point. and does that continuously. It might do the same in continuous focus while panning a surfer but not so sure, most still photo modes seem to still rely on a half press of the shutter to really focus.

Another possibility, that I don't use much is the face focus, to me it hunts badly too, but might actually work ok on surfers, or not. anyway worth a test if you get a chance.

IDK I think the action I shoot would be more problematic if water was introduced as typically that makes areas of high contrast and the camera might lean more towards focusing on that rather than the subject

Brownie1010 · Jun 5, 2015

Just a little update ... I have sent the FZ-1000 back to the camera store on the basis that it doesn't focus properly when zoomed in and panned in AF-C mode (and using the centre spot focus mode, second-smallest rectangle).

First attempt, of course, "no fault found". I told them to try again, and have sent in representative images (they also didn't get it that they could view the images in this forum and see the EXIF data). After a whole lot of to-ing and fro-ing (sigh, they didn't want any RAW images, as they didn't use "proprietary software" ... even though Windows 7 onwards natively views RAW files with the camera pack download, and there's always Irfanview ... but anyway.

Waiting on the response, and will let you know what happens next.

Cheers, Brownie.

FZ-1000 surfing shoot help - bad settings or the camera?

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts