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

Wonder if the settings mentioned here would help your situation ...

Sports with FZ1000

Wolfie, I didn't get much from that thread, other than seeing that its a pretty long and unedifying slanging match ...

All my shots are taken at 1/000th as minimum, and often at 1/2000th, because I like to see the frozen droplets of water, and yes, to freeze surfer/subject motion. Here they are discussing speeds like 1/100th ...

All my other settings have been already described early in the thread, and "conform" to the recommendations for action photography (from others in this forum).

My problem is either a faulty camera (what mass manufacturing process for complex electro-mechanical devices produces zero defects?) or its something very subtle ...

I am more interested in this thread ... LX100 focus problem is not uncommon http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55928227

If the LX100 and the FZ-1000 share algorithms, then maybe the problems of focussing on leaves and rapidly panned water have their similarities. Maybe Pinpoint Focus, rather than Small Area focus mode would give me better results.

But, I can't research anything until I get my camera back. And still doesn't explain why my FZ-150 gives consistently reliably better focus (with equivalent settings).

Cheers, Brownie.

Not to add to your pain regarding your troubles, but permit me a comment or two. I've done a fair amount of photography of surfers in the last couple of years using a D800+80-400mm lens, a Sony A6000+70-200mm lens, and when I owned one, an FZ200. My settings with the FZ200 were not so different from the ones you used on the FZ1000, nothing special in other words, and my pictures of body surfers always came out just fine...at least as sharp as the small sensor in that camera ever allows in extreme telephoto mode. Plus, the metering always was pretty much right where I wanted, except for the occasional extreme highlights in whitewater that were saturated even with my standard exposure compensation setting for surf of -0.7.

I took the liberty of downloading the full size image of the surfer from your first post. With a bit of tweaking of that exposure in LR 6, I easily restored the colors and contrast for the surfer and the wave, but the whitewater in the foreground is very overexposed and so the detail in it cannot be restored. BTW, always be aware that Panasonic uses a very heavy hand in noise reduction especially in JPEGs, so broad areas of uniform color will tend lose some detail because of image compression, and that may even be true for the RAW files from the FZ1000. I can't say for sure because I have never owned that camera.

As for the lack of lack of focus/detail in that picture of yours, I think you have an issue with technique when you are shooting at extreme telephoto focal lengths. I suspect your handholding technique, in that particular picture at least, was not steady enough even at the fast shutter speed you used. I say this because if you pixel peep and look at the individual tiny water droplets in the picture, you will see they are ALL slightly but nonetheless distinctly elongated in the vertical direction by the same angular amount, which suggests to me that you must have moved the camera during the shot while you tracked the surfer. As I say, this is a bit surprising given the high shutter speed you used, but I can't think of any other more likely explanation for this defect. As others have said, a good test of the camera would have been a picture of a static subject taken with the same or similar settings of the camera, using the timer function and a tripod or stable surface to support the camera if possible.

That's my 2 cents worth.....

I don't have an FZ, but I shoot surfing

Of course you're going to confuse AF with the intermittent spritzel in front of the surfer

Use manual focus - the focal length doesn't change much; it works

Rags

ragspix said:

I don't have an FZ, but I shoot surfing

Of course you're going to confuse AF with the intermittent spritzel in front of the surfer

Use manual focus - the focal length doesn't change much; it works

Rags

Click to expand...

That's not been my experience. I have always used continuous autofocus (AF-C), even with the Panasonic FZ200, and I cannot recall ever having had a problem with missed focus because of the spray. In over 3 years of shooting thousands of pictures of surfers with four different cameras (Nikon D7000, FZ200, Nikon D800, Sony A6000), I don't remember even a handful of shots that were out of focus because of excessive spray, even when I've shot into wild and choppy surf. If one's camera settings are chosen appropriately, the camera's AF should do its job and react "predictively" to the movement of the surfer. I've been getting very good results with the autofocus tracking on my A6000, but the predictive continuous tracking of the Nikon D800 is just superb. It has always nailed the focus (the D7K focus was a bit more flakey, which is why I replaced it with the D800).

When I examine your photos more closely, I see motion blur. Your shutterspeed was high enough to freeze most of the action. I don't know if you use the right technique for shooting with a 400mm lens. Check your stabiliser mode, and your shooting technique. Maybe a static object 400mm shot, and move on from there.

When I examine your exif data with "Photo ME", I read in your first surf pic exif: Stabiliser mode 5. That is a value I never had with my fz1000 stabiliser readings. Most of the time it says: stabiliser mode 1 or 2. So maybe that is something for you to investigate?

Exif values: contrast, saturation, sharpness, are set to "normal", but your gain control is set to "high". I would use "normal"

Last but not (nice at all) least

Reset your camera to the original factory settings and work from there. Maybe there is a setting somewhere deep inside, or a combination of settings you are overlooking. It is not a nice thing to do, but always look on the bright side of life. It's a chance to dive deep (again) into the mysterious world of your camera settings, and it's quirks!

Manual focus can work well for surfing but auto focus usually does the job.

My D7000's auto focus is anything but flaky. It's very accurate. I've that camera for thousands of surfing photos. The FZ200 isn't far behind. I've had more difficulty with my A6000, at least for surfing shots with the 55-210.

DW

Dan W said:

Manual focus can work well for surfing but auto focus usually does the job.

My D7000's auto focus is anything but flaky. It's very accurate. I've that camera for thousands of surfing photos. The FZ200 isn't far behind. I've had more difficulty with my A6000, at least for surfing shots with the 55-210.

DW

Click to expand...

The problem is probably the 55-210mm lens. When I bought my A6000, I bought a copy of the 55-210mm to see how Sony gear stacked up against my Nikon gear. It is a cheap lens and one of the worst lenses I've ever owned. The Sony 70-200mm G, on the other hand, focuses fast, has a very responsive OS/VR, and shows good color and contrast. It's one the few really good E-mount lenses Sony makes. It's nearly on a par with my superb Nikon 80-400mm G. If you are having problems shooting action with the 55-210mm, I'm not surprised. You might consider replacing it with a much more responsive lens like the 70-200mm. I've posted a number of my recent shots of body surfers taken with that lens on my DP Review gallery here.

The AF of the D7000 is known to be "temperamental" and is not nearly in the class of the later Dx and D8xx cameras. This has been noted many times in different discussion threads on-line, so I'm not the only one who found it lacking. If it works well for you, I'm pleased to hear that.

Baba Ganoush said:

ragspix said:

I don't have an FZ, but I shoot surfing

Of course you're going to confuse AF with the intermittent spritzel in front of the surfer

Use manual focus - the focal length doesn't change much; it works

Rags

Click to expand...

That's not been my experience. I have always used continuous autofocus (AF-C), even with the Panasonic FZ200, and I cannot recall ever having had a problem with missed focus because of the spray. In over 3 years of shooting thousands of pictures of surfers with four different cameras (Nikon D7000, FZ200, Nikon D800, Sony A6000), I don't remember even a handful of shots that were out of focus because of excessive spray, even when I've shot into wild and choppy surf. If one's camera settings are chosen appropriately, the camera's AF should do its job and react "predictively" to the movement of the surfer. I've been getting very good results with the autofocus tracking on my A6000, but the predictive continuous tracking of the Nikon D800 is just superb. It has always nailed the focus (the D7K focus was a bit more flakey, which is why I replaced it with the D800).

Click to expand...

Not my experience..

I do most shooting in Norcal with foggy conditions (low contrast) & spritzel

While I do most shooting with AF because I'm lazy, my best shots in difficult conditions are manual

I shot with 300s

Rags

Baba, I am remiss in not replying to your thoughtful post earlier. It gives me a lot to think about, but I've deferred until I get my camera back. It's still with the store, or been sent back to Panasonic. Awaiting an update, but I am heartened?by the fact that my sample images did not allow them to immediately claim "user error".

More soon, meanwhile I've bought a Sony A6000 and a housing, and had some early successes. But not in any way comparable to beach shooting. Cheers, Brownie.

Ha! an A6000! I think that is the answer too, so I bought one. My early A6000 experience is that it is less susceptible to sudden shifts in the focal pkane, and I know you say you haven't experienced, but I have, in the middle of a burst! Its in the trail earlier. Not a huge problem, once you know it can happen, just get higher above the waterline.

Cheers Brownie.

Dan, interesting, didn't buy the longer kit lens, just the 18 to 55 one, as using in water housing. The AF-C settings have given good results but full tests will be this weekend.

More soon, maybe in another forum or I'll get reported.

Cheers, Brownie.

Update!! As per earlier post (much earlier) I had sent the camera back to the retail store. It eventually went to its resident "triage" staff member who rang me and said there was "no fault found". Summarising a long but not unfriendly conversation, I confirmed that she was outside the shop, taking shots of oncoming motor vehicles on a busy road. I pointed out that she was unlikely to replicate my fault conditions, which don't involve hard edged objects moving only towards the lens, but do involve a natural subject moving quickly against a mottled background both across the field of view and towards the lens. She eventually agreed, partially also on the basis of the postings in this forum, and the images I had submitted, and the camera went off to Panasonic, admittedly still under the threat of a minimum $80 charge if Panasonic found no fault. I deferred that particular argument.

Now, again after a couple of weeks, I received a call from the retail shop, informing me that the camera was back with them. No details as yet, but was verbally informed that the camera had been tested, the lens assembly removed and repaired (recalibrated?) and reassembled.

So, will post any further repair info, and looking forward to see if the problem is truly fixed. But at least I didn't get a fob off from Panasonic, and no $80 charge as yet .

Now in a position to test the valuable advice you guys have given me.

Cheers Brownie.

Hi Two Hands, well as a result of the camera going back to Panasonic, it has mow been factory reset. I took it out to do some test shots, whuch I'll post (initial inspection looks OK).

But now, the zoom ring on the lens has no effect (and yes on multiple times I changed the Focus/Zoom barrel switch, Focus doesn't seem to be working either). Anyone know if a setting can disable the zoom ring? Note that the finger one around the shutter button does work - but the barrel ring dorsn't.

Anyone any ideas? Otherwise I'm taking it back on the basis that the lens replacement wasn't done properly, probably the switch wiring was left disconnected internally.

Cheers Brownie.

Just for the record, the second time back from Panasonic, the barrel zoom control works again. The long saga concluded.

I've used the camera enough now to convince me that whilst I may have created some problems by shooting into the sun in the original poor photo shoot, the lens was definitley faulty, and couldn't focus properly when zoomed in. I now get satisfactory surf photos from the camera, just a pity it took two returns to the manufacturer and an aggregate 8 weeks without the camera to get it resolved.

I also see others referring to defects with the FZ1000 lens, so feel somewhat vindicated in sticking to my guns with a retailer that flatly refused to take the camera back, until I made all the usual threats that getting warranty repairs done in Australia seems to require.

Hi Brownie. I'm a late commer to this thread and I will not offer any teck. ideas! Most are over my head anyway. What I will share with you is that I live on the ocean, and I have lots of experience with what salt can do. First of all it is constantly in the air. The geater the surf the more the salt. Frequently it looks like fog along A1A, the scenic highway. The fz200, and I believe thhe FZ1000 are not weather sealed. Operating the zoom draws air in/out of the camera, in minuscule amounts, but none the less there will be salt in it. I purchased the FZ300 for just this reason. It is weather sealed but I'LL bet air still gets into this camera when operating the zoom. Around here if air gets in, salt gets in! I usually set the camera the way I want it before I go out on the beach. If I make changes they are minimal. My 200 is now inland with my Daughter in law. I used it the way I described, and never had any problems. We live in a corrosive atmosphere. An a/c compressor last about 5 years here, and fails because of corrosion, even though it is well maintained, cleaned, waxed etc.

For the kind of stuff you like to do an underwater case/camera would be a good investment, IMHO of course.

Warmest regards,

--
DP Review - Where else?
Old Jim ;-)

Quite an odyssey! But in the end, I'm glad it worked out. I do have a further comment, however. The Hood on many Panasonic FZ cameras (FZ150, FZ200, and FZ1000) is very stiff to mount, dismount, or store. On my first FZ200, I'm quite sure I damaged the AF and OIS by mounting or dismounting the hood with the camera ON and the lens extended. I have taken two means to eliminate the possibility. First, I figured out which ridges in the hood are responsible for locking the hood in place for both normal use, and for self storage, and filing those down a little to reduce the torque needed to mount, dismount, or store the hood. Second, I make it a practice to only mount or dismount the hood with the lens fully retracted. And since the first FZ200, I have had no problems.

My original FZ150 had quite low torque; but a second one I bought recently, was as stiff as the FZ200 and the FZ1000.

Jerry

Gerald I will take note of that, though I now never take the hood off. I have a messenger bag that I just place the camera into, hood and all. Yes, electromechanical stress induced by applying a force that is counter to the motor drive attempting to hold the lens in a fixed position wouldn't be good. Cheers.

old jim wrote:

Hi Brownie. I'm a late commer to this thread and I will not offer any teck. ideas! Most are over my head anyway. What I will share with you is that I live on the ocean, and I have lots of experience with what salt can do. First of all it is constantly in the air. The geater the surf the more the salt. Frequently it looks like fog along A1A, the scenic highway. The fz200, and I believe thhe FZ1000 are not weather sealed. Operating the zoom draws air in/out of the camera, in minuscule amounts, but none the less there will be salt in it. I purchased the FZ300 for just this reason. It is weather sealed but I'LL bet air still gets into this camera when operating the zoom. Around here if air gets in, salt gets in! I usually set the camera the way I want it before I go out on the beach. If I make changes they are minimal. My 200 is now inland with my Daughter in law. I used it the way I described, and never had any problems. We live in a corrosive atmosphere. An a/c compressor last about 5 years here, and fails because of corrosion, even though it is well maintained, cleaned, waxed etc.

For the kind of stuff you like to do an underwater case/camera would be a good investment, IMHO of course.

Warmest regards,

--
DP Review - Where else?
Old Jim ;-)jim,

Jim, thanksfor commenting, but largely gonna disagree in this way: the original issue involved what was basically a brand new camera, used only for a couple of hours, generally in offshore breezes. Not saying salt air us good for camera electronics and optical performance, especially over time, just that its not relevant to this saga. My FZ150 used over a much longer time, in same conditions, still has no issues.

Over time, moisture ingress is an issue for any lens and camera body, though maybe fungal growth is less prevalet these days. I have no data on this topic.

I do have an underwater housing for my other camera, a Sony A6000, which works well. But not gonna worry too much about the FZ1000, and as long as it takes good images for a couple if years, I don't care if it fails after that. Let's me buy the next toy ... .

Know too well about water and compressors, I started as a pneumatic controls engineer before moving on to design industrial electronics for DDC systems. Cameras need air filters and after-driers!

Cheers!

Brian Wadie said:

Don't give up just yet, maybe have a look here at what I have been doing with it shooting windsurfers in action on our local beaches (all have EXIF data attached)

here https://www.flickr.com/photos/75445098@N04/sets/72157649873837001/

Click to expand...

I've often wished that cameras had the ability to read the settings from the EXIF of a photo - one could just put one of these windsurfer photos on the SD card and tell the camera to configure to match. (Though my original intent was to be able to recall seldom-used settings to ensure I used what worked in the past!)