Jim Cassatt
Veteran Member
I am not calling this a review, because I have not done the kind of thorough testing that can lead to rock hard conclusions. Rather these are my experiences after using the FZ-1000, off and on, for a few months.
For years I have shot Canon full frame cameras. Recently I have added a Fuji X-E2 with several lenses to my lineup. I bought the FZ1000 because I saw occasions when I wanted a wide choice of focal lengths, but did not want to have to hire a pack mule to carry my equipment.
First general comments. I like to characterize my Canon 5D MKIII, with my complement of lenses, as a jack of all trades and master of all. That is the Canon paired with the appropriate lens, flash, etc. will do everything and do it as well as or almost as well as the best equipment on the market.
My Fuji system does a lot of things very well, but falls seriously short in come other areas.
I would characterize the FZ1000 as jack of all trades, but master of none (or almost none). That is it does just about everything, but you can generally find another camera/system that will do the task better. I should also add that I do not do video, so this comment only applies to stills.
Now for the details. First off, I only shoot RAW. There are really few surprises. Most of the pluses and minuses can be gleaned from the specifications.
The good: In decent light this camera is capable of producing excellent pictures. Not surprising because you can say that about almost any camera. However, let me amplify a bit. The lens seems to me to be excellent at all focal lengths. One day I took the camera to the zoo. I also lugged along my 5D MKIII with 400 mm f5.6L because I also wanted to try out my new Canon 1.4X TC. The pictures taken with the Panasonic compared well with those taken with the Canon. This is quite remarkable because the 400 mm f5.6L is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes. I doubt you would be able to see any differences at any sort of reasonable resolution.
Autofocus seems fast and accurate, faster than my Fuji X-E2. I don't how well it focuses on challenging subjects. This is one area where my 5D MKIII shines.
Metering and WB seem accurate.
The not so good: Again there should be no surprises as these are fairly obvious from the specs.
The camera is big. You can get that from the specs. However, is tiny compared to a full frame camera with 400 mm zoom.
Some have complained that the camera seems flimsy. Yes, but that also makes for a much lighter package. For me, I would say that the size and weight are about the same as my Fuji X-E2 with 18-135 mm lens.
High ISO leaves a lot to be desires, but that should be obvious from the size of the sensor. To be a bit more specific, I had to use ISO 3200 on my Canon at the zoo, because the lens is not stabilized, whereas I could get away with ISO 800 on my FZ-1000. The results were comparable in terms of noise. I tried photographing my grandson at his soccer practice one evening. To get a sufficient shutter speed to stop the action, I had to use ISO 6400. The results were unusable. OTH I have shot ISO 6400 with my Canon and the results were fine even with out applying NR. With my Fuji, pictures taken at ISO 6400 are quite decent with some NR applied.
I do not like the electronic zoom. I much prefer the responsiveness of a manual zoom.
The switch to turn on and off the stabilization is to easy to use. It is easy to turn off the stabilization and not realize it until you look at the pictures.
So what is this camera good for? I am not sure it makes an ideal travel camera. I think I would prefer my Fuji with 18-135 lens. The package is about the same size. However, better IQ in low light, makes the Fuji more versatile. For casual use for travel, it is also a big package. I think if I were to just want something to carry with me to get the decent travel picture, I would choose something smaller.
Is it a good camera to take on safari? Probably. But if I am going to pay all of that money to go on safari, I would take my Canon gear.
How about portraits? A lot of times you want to isolate the subject against a blurred background. This is not the camera you would choose for that. However, one feature that intrigues me is the ability to sync flash up to 1/4000 sec.
So what is good for? I would say for the person who wants a really versatile camera and does not want to invest in a "System" from other manufactures.
Just my two cents. I did take the camera to San Francisco last week and took a few pictures, The results can be seen at http://www.pbase.com/jcassatt/san_francisco
For years I have shot Canon full frame cameras. Recently I have added a Fuji X-E2 with several lenses to my lineup. I bought the FZ1000 because I saw occasions when I wanted a wide choice of focal lengths, but did not want to have to hire a pack mule to carry my equipment.
First general comments. I like to characterize my Canon 5D MKIII, with my complement of lenses, as a jack of all trades and master of all. That is the Canon paired with the appropriate lens, flash, etc. will do everything and do it as well as or almost as well as the best equipment on the market.
My Fuji system does a lot of things very well, but falls seriously short in come other areas.
I would characterize the FZ1000 as jack of all trades, but master of none (or almost none). That is it does just about everything, but you can generally find another camera/system that will do the task better. I should also add that I do not do video, so this comment only applies to stills.
Now for the details. First off, I only shoot RAW. There are really few surprises. Most of the pluses and minuses can be gleaned from the specifications.
The good: In decent light this camera is capable of producing excellent pictures. Not surprising because you can say that about almost any camera. However, let me amplify a bit. The lens seems to me to be excellent at all focal lengths. One day I took the camera to the zoo. I also lugged along my 5D MKIII with 400 mm f5.6L because I also wanted to try out my new Canon 1.4X TC. The pictures taken with the Panasonic compared well with those taken with the Canon. This is quite remarkable because the 400 mm f5.6L is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes. I doubt you would be able to see any differences at any sort of reasonable resolution.
Autofocus seems fast and accurate, faster than my Fuji X-E2. I don't how well it focuses on challenging subjects. This is one area where my 5D MKIII shines.
Metering and WB seem accurate.
The not so good: Again there should be no surprises as these are fairly obvious from the specs.
The camera is big. You can get that from the specs. However, is tiny compared to a full frame camera with 400 mm zoom.
Some have complained that the camera seems flimsy. Yes, but that also makes for a much lighter package. For me, I would say that the size and weight are about the same as my Fuji X-E2 with 18-135 mm lens.
High ISO leaves a lot to be desires, but that should be obvious from the size of the sensor. To be a bit more specific, I had to use ISO 3200 on my Canon at the zoo, because the lens is not stabilized, whereas I could get away with ISO 800 on my FZ-1000. The results were comparable in terms of noise. I tried photographing my grandson at his soccer practice one evening. To get a sufficient shutter speed to stop the action, I had to use ISO 6400. The results were unusable. OTH I have shot ISO 6400 with my Canon and the results were fine even with out applying NR. With my Fuji, pictures taken at ISO 6400 are quite decent with some NR applied.
I do not like the electronic zoom. I much prefer the responsiveness of a manual zoom.
The switch to turn on and off the stabilization is to easy to use. It is easy to turn off the stabilization and not realize it until you look at the pictures.
So what is this camera good for? I am not sure it makes an ideal travel camera. I think I would prefer my Fuji with 18-135 lens. The package is about the same size. However, better IQ in low light, makes the Fuji more versatile. For casual use for travel, it is also a big package. I think if I were to just want something to carry with me to get the decent travel picture, I would choose something smaller.
Is it a good camera to take on safari? Probably. But if I am going to pay all of that money to go on safari, I would take my Canon gear.
How about portraits? A lot of times you want to isolate the subject against a blurred background. This is not the camera you would choose for that. However, one feature that intrigues me is the ability to sync flash up to 1/4000 sec.
So what is good for? I would say for the person who wants a really versatile camera and does not want to invest in a "System" from other manufactures.
Just my two cents. I did take the camera to San Francisco last week and took a few pictures, The results can be seen at http://www.pbase.com/jcassatt/san_francisco
