will you wait for the FZ2000 or get a RX10ii?

or will you get a both ?

I am very late to the game with my FZ1000 arriving Wednesday. If the performance matches the expert reviews that were done, I won't be switching teams to go with Sony. I will likely keep the 1000 and get the 2000 IF the new model has refinements that are substantive in nature, not merely evolutionary.

Until there are several full reviews with sample images on the RX10 II no way to make a accurate/intelligent comparison between the RX10 vs. the RX10 II, not alone to guess/ascertain what the FZ1000 II (or FZ2000) will be like.

Do not make purchase choices based upon speculations and/or rumors. Also learned MANY years ago that latest does NOT means the greatest.

I myself would not expect the RX10 II price to have any meaningful price drop until the RX10 inventory been sold.

yonsarh said:

or will you get a both ?

Click to expand...

Only those with GAS. :-|

maybe.. maybe not.

For me the fz1000 has a some built in plus aspects.. I like the software that comes with it and have a couple of fz200's I have a lot of extra batteries and chargers..

that said I'm not really satisfied with the fz1000's IQ and yearn for something better. and I yearn for longer FL too which sony's RX10ii is not going to satisfy.

Then back to the fz2000 idea.. I'd guess odds are they would change the battery and eliminate that area of cost savings I currently see with the fz1000.. so they would really have to step up the IQ IMO

so.. maybe, maybe not lol.

Neither! I already have the FZ1000, it exceeds my current needs, I like it, and I have a full system built around it including a pair of Olympus FL36R flash for wireless control by the FZ1000. So, there is no pressure to change it.

The FZ2000 is just supposition, and the RX10 II offers nothing I want or need. However, the FZ300 has possible interest, as I do have use for a significantly longer lens than the FZ1000 or FZ200 have. Currently, I use a refurbished Canon SX50HS for that need.

I have the FZ1000 and an FZ150,

I like being able to carry only one camera to do both stills and video.
Because Panasonic crippled the video capture length on the FZ1000, I need to use my fz150 when I will need to take long videos.

If the RX10II does not have a recording limit (even if only for 1080P).

I would seriously have to consider switching to the RX10 from my FZ1000 (love the stills and stabilization in this camera), or replacing the FZ150.

RandTx said:

....that said I'm not really satisfied with the fz1000's IQ and yearn for something better. ...

Click to expand...

Curious, what are you not satisfied with the fz1000's IQ?

At higher ISO's I'm not too impressed with the FZ1K's SOOC JPG IQ (here), but not that big of an issue for me as I mainly shoot RAW. Been very satisfied with the IQ of PP RAW files with DxO Optics Pro 10. Need to do pixel peeping to see IQ differences between FZ1K and my 70D DSLR up to 800 ~ 1600 ISO.

However since the FZ1K's EOZ and iZoom does not support RAW (as the FZ150 & FZ200), will need to do some experimentation on camera settings to use the 10 MP/EOZ to get the 560mm equiv; i.e., close to the FZ200 600mm equiv.

Jon_T said:

RandTx said:

....that said I'm not really satisfied with the fz1000's IQ and yearn for something better. ...

Click to expand...

Curious, what are you not satisfied with the fz1000's IQ?

At higher ISO's I'm not too impressed with the FZ1K's SOOC JPG IQ (here), but not that big of an issue for me as I mainly shoot RAW. Been very satisfied with the IQ of PP RAW files with DxO Optics Pro 10. Need to do pixel peeping to see IQ differences between FZ1K and my 70D DSLR up to 800 ~ 1600 ISO.

However since the FZ1K's EOZ and iZoom does not support RAW (as the FZ150 & FZ200), will need to do some experimentation on camera settings to use the 10 MP/EOZ to get the 560mm equiv; i.e., close to the FZ200 600mm equiv.

Click to expand...

Overall mine is too soft for my liking, and has too many jpg artefacts or IDK chroma blobs?

To correct the softness takes all the sharpness I can push though it then that creates more objectionable noise... so I often feel like I'm chasing my tail on that one.

Mainly a pixel peeping 1:1 thing.

Now in 4K video in good light, I like the results when downsized to 1080P (50% viewing) although it's not up really being a quad of good IQ 1080P frames. so cropping 4K to 1080P seldom works out well.

then in 1080P video.. it just different, kind of grainy and noisy. which might be fixable with different settings than used in photo or 4k video, yet that's not so practical. if things could be equaled out, who knows I might go back shooting some 1080P-60fps as that makes better PP'ed slow motion that 30fps.

Overall it just comes off to me as another fair weather camera. it can be quite nice in really good light but can go downhill fast if lighting isn't perfect esp if any crop is involved.

And in good light yes the higher iso stuff is great, which is great at gaining DOF and faster SS but as far as using it for lower light.. it too can get ugly fast, esp in video

The camera I miss is my original fz200. it could go head to head with most of the best fz150's I've seen IQ wise. tack sharp, buttery backgrounds about no noise. Of course that's a fair weather camera too as higher iso heads down hill real fast. But it was a camera I loved to PP photos at 1:1 crops often vs feeling the need to stop at 50% with the fz1000. If I could go back in time one of the things I change is to go back and not allow that camera to get knocked of the table to the floor... it's replacement has a finer noise grain than the fz1000 but it's no match for my original one.

All that said, in the right lighting the 1k can impress me from time to time. just don't have much trust that it's going to return clear, in focus, clean shots most of the time. and overall it's far from what I'd hoped for as an "upgrade" to the 200 in terms of sensor quality and optical clarity. and I miss the full size 600mm optical quite a bit too...

I can't accept less than 400mm, (after being spoiled by 600mm @ f/2.8).

I was not at all impressed by the RX10 because it was indeed only 200mm.

So while I appreciate all the new features, and definitely WANT them (ALL), I will have to, (and will), wait until they are available w/ either 400 or 600mm.

I just hope it comes fast.

But also concerned that Sony is not making any significant IQ improvement claims for the new "stacked" sensor, (we need that to further minimize the difference between 1" and 4/3 & APS).

There is also a lot of "usability" improvements, (like including individual 3, 6, 12, 4K burst speeds, HDR, HandHeld NIGHTshot, and panoramic directly on the drive knob/dial).

AND moving the self-timer/3-shot to another separate control.

Rx10ii is a huge disappointment for me, nothing more what the FZ1000 cannot do. I see praises for the EVF technology having high pixel counts when FZ1000 is already in that league 1 year ago.

Sony also chose to remain the zoom lens the exact same as the mark 1 version. Aesthetically, it looks identical and so are the features. Same goes for the RX100mk4. But in the end, im glad I made the move to get the FZ1000 rather than wait for an overpriced RX10ii.

muscular said:

....im glad I made the move to get the FZ1000 rather than wait for an overpriced RX10ii.

Click to expand...

Higher price nothing new/unusual, all new products with newer technology will have a higher price to recover research/manufacturing costs, and be able to reduce inventory of current model without reducing current model's price.

In all fairness the RX10's current higher price than the FZ1K is not really not that unreasonably considering RX10's build quality (Weather-sealed magnesium alloy body), top panel LCD panel, zoom and aperture rings, Built-in 3EV Neutral Density filter, etc.

For a photog that lives in an area with frequent inclement weather conditions, he/she may prefer the RX10 for its weather-sealed body.

A camera like any other tool, one selects the tool that best fits his/her needs. ;-)

If it had a flip-out screen and better IQ, I might be interested.

The screen's the deal breaker. How do you shoot in portrait position with a tilting screen? Half my shots are in portrait, so half the time a tilting screen might as well be a fixed screen. Just plain stupid. Here's a great camera--only thing is, you can't turn it on.

Jon_T said:

In all fairness the RX10's current higher price than the FZ1K is not really not that unreasonably considering RX10's build quality (Weather-sealed magnesium alloy body), top panel LCD panel, zoom and aperture rings, Built-in 3EV Neutral Density filter, etc.

Click to expand...

The RX10(II) has no IPxx specification and is not weathersealed or splashproof. Sony advertises it as as moisture and dust resistant, but that will never be covered by warranty.

But more important: all the points you listed are not new. They are the same features RX10 allready had, and basically the same factory parts, so they are dirt cheap to produce for Sony by now. Keep in mind that the RX10 is sold with those features for 770€ where I live, and Sony wants to sell the RX10II for 1600€.

We know the RX10's sensor was allready 4K capable, as was it's image processor (see AX100).

So basically Sony want Europeans to pay twice for 4K, new EVF and Slow-Motion video. Comparing that to the RX10 and the FZ1000(4K too) price here (690€) makes the RX10II's price seem very very unreasonable to say the least.

I've read that the weather resistance of the RX10 is not much better than the FZ1000. It's not weather proof.

coolowski said:

Jon_T said:

In all fairness the RX10's current higher price than the FZ1K is not really not that unreasonably considering RX10's build quality (Weather-sealed magnesium alloy body), top panel LCD panel, zoom and aperture rings, Built-in 3EV Neutral Density filter, etc.

Click to expand...

The RX10(II) has no IPxx specification and is not weathersealed or splashproof. Sony advertises it as as moisture and dust resistant, but that will never be covered by warranty.

Click to expand...

Do not have the the RX10, just going by what DPR and other online reviews provide for the RX10's specs. Anyway some is generally better than none.

coolowski said:

But more important: all the points you listed are not new. They are the same features RX10 allready had, and basically the same factory parts, so they are dirt cheap to produce for Sony by now. Keep in mind that the RX10 is sold with those features for 770€ where I live, and Sony wants to sell the RX10II for 1600€.

Click to expand...

PLEASE thoroughly re-read my post. Again the "points" I mention you're referencing was for the RX10 (NOT the RX10 II) :-| vs the FZ1K.

I do not (and frankly do not care) have knowledge as to what Sony spent in the research, development, retooling/manufacture the new sensor to substantiate what the additional RX10 II's price.

coolowski said:

We know the RX10's sensor was allready 4K capable, as was it's image processor (see AX100).

So basically Sony want Europeans to pay twice for 4K, new EVF and Slow-Motion video. Comparing that to the RX10 and the FZ1000(4K too) price here (690€) makes the RX10II's price seem very very unreasonable to say the least.

Click to expand...

When the RX10 was first released in the USA around a year ago, RX10 price was $US1,299.00. And as to "basically the same factory parts, so they are dirt cheap to produce for Sony by now", doubt the actual manufacturing costs (e.g., labor, materials, overhead, etc.) for parts are significantly cheaper than a year ago.

Again as noted in my previous post -- like it or not, nothing new/unusual that a product (new or updated) with new technology (sensor, CPU for computer, etc.) will have a higher price than the current product. New product may be higher mainly for the purpose to reduce inventory of current model. At least here in the USA have not noticed recent drop in price for the RX10.

Bottom line, if you (and any others) truly believe that the new RX10 II is "very very unreasonable to say the least", there's a very very simple solution -- do not buy one. Lack of sales will make a far greater statement/impact to Sony (or any Mfg.) than posting complaints. ;-)

Brad Bohland said:

I've read that the weather resistance of the RX10 is not much better than the FZ1000.

Click to expand...

Be interested in reading -- provide source/link?

Brad Bohland said:

It's not weather proof.

Click to expand...

Just quoting what DPR noted in the RX10 review.

I'm well aware now days due to legal ramifications hardly anything noted as "proof" any more, all "resistance" along with other (fine print) restrictions/limitations.

"What do I conclude based on the info above? Just what the Sony literature says, basic dust and moisture resistance only. Light rain should be fine, light flaky snow should be fine, etc."

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55481912

Brad Bohland said:

"What do I conclude based on the info above? Just what the Sony literature says, basic dust and moisture resistance only. Light rain should be fine, light flaky snow should be fine, etc."

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55481912

Click to expand...

That appears to more of a personal opinion rather than any factual data -- unless kwa_photo disassembled or provided photos of a disassembled RX10.

I was inquiring mainly to your "...RX10 is not much better than the FZ1000". Read in many reviews that RX10 is dust and moisture resistance, and just recently look at the Sony's RX10 website where it notes "Dust and moisture-resistant mag-alloy body".

But all the FZK1 reviews I've read does not note that the FZ1K has any dust and moisture-resistance, nor does the Panny FZ1K website note any kind of dust and moisture-resistance.

Hopefully Panny provided dust resistance at least around the lens barrels to prevent dust being sucked in while zooming to tele focal lengths.

It's probably pretty much anecdotal.

RX10 users have subjected the thing to some real weather.

Maybe we need a thread with the subject: FZ1000 users--taken on any weather?

Jon_T said:

Jon_T said:

But more important: all the points you listed are not new. They are the same features RX10 allready had, and basically the same factory parts, so they are dirt cheap to produce for Sony by now. Keep in mind that the RX10 is sold with those features for 770€ where I live, and Sony wants to sell the RX10II for 1600€.

Click to expand...

PLEASE thoroughly re-read my post. Again the "points" I mention you're referencing was for the RX10 (NOT the RX10 II) :-| vs the FZ1K.

Click to expand...

You dont seem to understand that those points are identical for RX10 and RX10II as they are identical parts. There is no difference in the RX10 body and lens to RX10II as far as anyone can tell. The only difference is sensor, EVF and software.

Jon_T said:

When the RX10 was first released in the USA around a year ago, RX10 price was $US1,299.00. And as to "basically the same factory parts, so they are dirt cheap to produce for Sony by now", doubt the actual manufacturing costs (e.g., labor, materials, overhead, etc.) for parts are significantly cheaper than a year ago.

Click to expand...

Of course the new camera is more expensive than the old one. But as far as I see, the US introduction price of RX10 and RX10II is the same isn't it ? While in Europe its 400€ more then RX10 was when it was released. That is why its very very unreasonably priced in Europe.

Also there is no debating in the fact that the longer you keep a manufacturing line running (in this case RX10 body and lens parts) the cheaper the parts are for the company to produce compared to their initial investment and research costs.

Jon_T said:

Bottom line, if you (and any others) truly believe that the new RX10 II is "very very unreasonable to say the least", there's a very very simple solution -- do not buy one. Lack of sales will make a far greater statement/impact to Sony (or any Mfg.) than posting complaints. ;-)

Click to expand...

Well this is a forum so I'm just telling my opinion ;-)

I think the situation for US is different, but here in Europe the price increase is insane (Portugal even has to pay an additional 100€ lol)