Reading mode: Light Dark

FZ1000 still image quality?

Go to last post
I was looking for long lens for my full frame Canon 1Ds11. ..........had a budget of around £1000. While I was researching the various options I saw the reviews of the FZ1000 and thought I'd have a look, 4 weeks ago I was in the nearest good camera shop and tried out the lens, while there I also tried out the FZ and couldn't believe what a package it was, great value for money, pretty good at most things, great at video, love the 4k stills feature, wifi control, articulated screen, control dials and wheels. 12 frames a second.

I bought it there and then, I haven't put it down since. The 1Ds11 will be staying in the studio from now on, it's great for that, my Sony A7r will be out for planned landscapes, its great for that, but the FZ will be in the bag or around my neck for all general walk about and events, holidays etc. Try buying a 400mm lens for a FF and you suddenly put the price tag and capabilities of the FZ1000 in perspective, it's a steal.

--
"The best gear you'll ever buy is a good pair of walking boots"
 
As I am very interested in your thread so is it possible you could show us some samples of your pictures taken with the camera you consider shows us your point of view and at the same time show shots taken with your FZ1000 to show us who are thinking of buying a FZ1000 , perhaps from your gallery might be good.

Many thanks

John

--
Ingy
https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_ingrouille
 
Last edited:
a very nice collection of images you have there..

my complements to you.. :)

trog
 
I'll make this my last remark on this thread as I see it has been met with criticism- shocker on a Panny forum. (Even though my finding is my opinion which is subjective- but of course others will always want to challenge an opinion!)

It's quite simple, I thought this camera was very near the image quality as dslr's.....I know it's a smaller sensor and have read all the reviews I could find so I'm aware of what it is and isn't- I just had hoped for higher still IQ than what I'm getting from it.....its not about comparing apples to apples- it's end end result that had me slightly disappointed- if you guys don't get that- then just let it go as my opinion- which is shared by a few others as well.

The camera is by no means junk or incapable- it produces nice images just not to the level I thought it would. It has some softness at varying focal lengths and it easily blows highlights. Yes techniques can be used to keep highlights in check but it means under exposing etc to keep its capture tonality within its capabilities which is limited to a degree. Check dpreviews sample studio shot and compare it to other cameras and the lack of sharpness is very evident......this is also mirrored in my images using the camera as well.

i had a Nikon D1 way back in 1999 (or so) and I remember having to create Photoshop actions to correct the magenta shift on the 2.7 megapixel state of the art camera back in the day......16 years later and having purchased tons of cameras i thought a modern super zoom priced at nearly $900 which is above the cost of many interchangeable lens cameras had closed the gap to near imperceptible margins to that of dslr's........my exoectations were simply not met in the case of the FZ........is it a bad camera- not at all.......many of you guys seem to like it and that's great.....for me it's more of a video camera than stills- and as I stated from the very beginning, this is my opinion based on 20+ years of shooting and owning tons of cameras.

I won't reply any further as I know where this will end up- my reason for posting in the first place is to voice my opinion of which I see some others share......anyone considering this camera should know some find its still IQ lacking a bit. If anyone disagrees, sobeit, it's just my opinion based on my time shooting with it.

Now let me go grab my FZ so I can challenge myself and it.
 
Criticism? Why? You didnt post one single photo in full res to check the quality. Blowouts? Do you really mean that FF or APSC dont have blowouts? I had sony NEX5R with very good 16Mpx APSC sensor, do you think I didnt have blowouts with it? Come'on :D Sorry but its quite naive to think good camera sensor or lens or automatic will do all the job for photographer. Its up to photographer to consider conditions and choose the right exposure following by proper PP. Even human eye faces to blowouts in crucial conditions and has more than double of DR of the todays best sensors. Shoot RAW, consider light conditions and photo content to have technicaly the best photos and this is valid even for fullframe. Ofcourse they have better performance because its another league. Just look at the dpreview measurements and look the difference between APSC and FZ1000 1" sensor, quite subtle when comparing the size difference. I understand its infuficient against FF, but you shouldnt compare them at all. If you need FF buy it and even dont think about 1", MTF or so.

And to be honest, if you read carefully all that good FZ1000 reviews as you said, you would never consider FZ1000 to replace FF camera... ;)
 
Last edited:
SteveNunez said:
I've been testing the FZ1000 shooting RAW and find the still images lacking a bit.

The images scream P&S camera and was expecting a bit more quality as reviewers raved about how good the camera is. Perhaps I'm a bit spoiled as I shoot only interchangeable lens cameras and have not purchased a P&S camera in over 15 years as I was never impressed with the stills......I was expecting a bit more from the FZ1000- anyone else feel the same? My old Canon EOS 1D MKIIN is very old and I thought the newer advanced P&S had advanced to that stage of IQ- but alas no. (I know you guys are going to say unfair comparison but I'm talking about an OLD DSLR VS a 2015 camera!)

The camera isn't bad per se'- but I was just expecting more- dynamic range is limited and highlights blow out easily and not as recoverable as lens camera RAW's.

I purchased the FZ thinking I could leave my lens cameras behind but I know I won't be pleased with the photos I'll end up with using the FZ1000.

I do however like the video capture and for that I'll probably keep the camera but as a stills camera these super zooms still have a bit to go to catch up to the lens cameras.......I was probably asking too much but I dreamt of a camera like this with near DSLR quality- but they're not there YET! I can't wait until they are!

Enough of my rant~~~ enjoy shooting guys.

(I now have a challenge to bring this FZ1000 to the wildlife wetlands and see what sort of captures I can get......my Sony A7 and Oly E-M10 are just superb in stills and I know what is possible!)
Click to expand...
 
Well we would all love to enjoy our FZ1000`s if you would stop bleating on and on about its mediocre image quality, i had a 60D, sold it, i had a 70d, sold it, neither in my opinion could match the FZ1000 in versatility, and for that fact no DSLR can or ever will, thats what the camera is designed for, i cant stand the zoomer in and outers, now as other folks have told you, we know the bigger the sensor the better low-light performance will be, but in decent light when i looked at my 70d pictures they looked softer than the FZ1000`s in fact to my eyes the FZ1000 PICTURES LOOKED BETTER, BUT THEN AGAIN I AM NOT A PIXEL PEEPER, and i think you know well fine that the bigger the sensor the better overall quality `can` be, i think you just want to read that fact over and over from every poster here as if you need re-assured overall, and it looks like you are trolling in this forum, for heavens sake, the FZ1000 is a Bridge Camera, it is not designed to compete with your beloved DSLRs, if you hate its image quality so much, fine, sell it, trade it in for another beloved DSLR, whatever, i hate bricks around my neck and thats not including the bag of barbell weights i would have to carry round my shoulder in lenses, filters and other accessories i would need to match the FZ1000s focal ranges, thats why my `heavy` equipment was sold, there is no such thing as the `perfect` camera` and that includes your beloved DSLRs but there is as i said earlier, convenience, and that is a big, subject, and for that fact again i will say, `no` DSLR is going to match the FZ1000 for that, because that's what it is designed for, there is so much software on the market vastly improving not year by year, not month by month, but mostly on a weekly basis, picture quality no end, stand 12" from a 60d 70d picture or FZ1000 straight from the camera and you can hardly tell the difference ?(unless you are a silly pixel peeper) in fact out of these 3 cameras i must say that to me, the FZ1000 sure does look that bit sharper overall!
 
an fZ1000 image is tack sharp.. its a superb hand held wildlife camera..

i love mine but i do have cameras that in more limited circumstances do have better colour and tonal detail.. nothing that is sharper though..

the OP is simply not playing fair by comparing an FZ1000 image for image with larger sensor cameras..

the FZ1000 will capture images where many cameras would fail..

if i compare an FZ1000 image with one taken with my M43 GX7 with its glued on 12-35 2.8 pro lens providing i stay within the 12-35 range when pixel peeped (which i do) the M43 set up would win out..

but then again if i compare my best M43 gear with my even more limited use Sigma merrills the merrills will win out..

now i am going to be brutally honest.. only a fool would think otherwise..

i do pixel peep with the best of them.. i know what the weakness of the remarkable sony 1 inch sensor is.. it lacks colour depth and fine texture detail.. this will show up at its wider end but not at its longer end.. at its longer end very little will beat it..

is its image quality good enough for me.. it is allowing for its for its general usability.. would an FZ200 smaller sensor still image quality be good enough.. nope if i thought it was i would saved some dosh and bought one..

we all have our limits and the FZ1000 at its wider end is pushing mine.. at its longer end i love the bloody thing.. he he

feather-detail.jpg


view full size

trog
 
Last edited:
LOL another :D well prove it, post two pictures well focused with proper camera settings and we can talk about it then ;) Low ISO, high ISO, doesnt matter. What I saw pictures in full size, FZ1000 is far ahead FZ200 and its expectable and no need to talk about more. Even at basic ISO there is so much less noise. I did dosens of photos, test or reallife and no 1/2,3" sensor camera can get close to it. Bigger sensor, more Mpx (yeah! :D )...Im patiently waiting for your picture comparison.
 
Last edited:
Well for that fact you have got to admit that there are many Failings also with DSLRs, for example, look at the negative comments for the new Canon EOs 7D MKII, many people are upset at its mediocre sensor, DXO tested it against a 5 year old Nikon model, and guess what? Astonishingly, the Nikon scored higher, every camera, be it DSLR 4/3rds, bridge, have their faults and that includes major failings in image quality applying to DSLRs also, per my previous DXO example test!
 
XVOYAGERX said:
Well said Kultus, it looks like this guy is a friend of, and trolling just like the other displeased moaner, SteveNunez. lololololo
Click to expand...
Here's my proof, where's yours.

I'm taking longer shots, at 100 feet or more.

Straight from the cameras at max optical zoom.

Aperture priority, f4, iso 200, AWB, Std picture style, NR - max, all others 0.

FZ1000

P1010924%201000.jpg


FZ200

P1060537%20200.jpg


FZ1000

P1010923%201000.jpg


FZ200

P1060535%20200.jpg


There's my shots, now where are yours?

dave

--
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs

davev

Hello Everyone. All photos that you see here are owned by Dave or Kate Vichich. Please feel free to view them, but refrain from posting in forums. That's my job. No one is free to use these photos for profit, or for display on other web sites. Likewise they are not free to use in print...
davev.smugmug.com davev.smugmug.com
www.flickr.com

dave v

Explore dave v’s 13,761 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
FZ1000 pictures look better to me, as Kultus said, the smaller sensor of the FZ200 just will not be better than the 1" sensor, for a start `physics` tells you that, no need to get in to an argument over this, you will `not` win!!
 
SteveNunez said:
I'll make this my last remark on this thread as I see it has been met with criticism- shocker on a Panny forum. (Even though my finding is my opinion which is subjective- but of course others will always want to challenge an opinion!)

Steve Nunez~South Florida Artist
www.stevenunez.com
Oly E-M10, Pan FZ1000, GM1, GF3, Pentax Q7, Samsung NX10 & Others~~
Click to expand...
Steve N-- Please notify me by PM when/if you want to sell. I'm looking to try one out at about half the going price.

fb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MJ_Photo38
FZ1000 vs Lumix G80
Replies
7
Views
8K
SonyX
SonyX
Dick Dastardly
FZ1000- 10 years later
Replies
8
Views
30K
bridge77
B
MJ_Photo38
Lumix G80 vs FZ1000
Replies
11
Views
5K
Gary Waugh
G
Stockholmed-in-BadMusic
Panasonic Lumix S5II vs Nikon Z5II + L-mount vs Z-mount
Replies
14
Views
65K
RBIV
RBIV
MJ_Photo38
Which premium standard zoom to get?
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
225K
Kevin Stephens
K

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top