FZ1000: No respect?

Test driving an FZ1000 for an Alaska trip this summer. So far looks great!

Mine arrived without a lens cap. Is that standard? Seems like a large piece of glass to not have any sort of protection over it.

No, it should have a lens cap. I've bought a 62mm replacement that allows a cord to pass through it to avoid losing it. Its held on to the camera by an elastic strap around the lens barrel, so can easily be taken off totally if needed, which for me gives the best of both worlds:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/JJC-L-S2-Le...id=1456215499&sr=8-4&keywords=lens+cap+holder

Andrewteee said:

Test driving an FZ1000 for an Alaska trip this summer. So far looks great!

Mine arrived without a lens cap. Is that standard? Seems like a large piece of glass to not have any sort of protection over it.

Click to expand...

Should of came with lens cap.

I am also going to Alaska this summer. First time on a cruise ship !

FZ1000 and few other cameras will be joining me

ANAYV

ANAYV said:

Andrewteee said:

Test driving an FZ1000 for an Alaska trip this summer. So far looks great!

Mine arrived without a lens cap. Is that standard? Seems like a large piece of glass to not have any sort of protection over it.

Click to expand...

Should of came with lens cap.

I am also going to Alaska this summer. First time on a cruise ship !

FZ1000 and few other cameras will be joining me

ANAYV

Click to expand...

Yep - it comes with a lens cap (but no string/twine/fibre cable to attach the damn thing!)

Also - I suggest you get a UV filter - not for the UV filtering but to protect that big front lens.

I got this one -

Amazon UK

It's only 3 mm thick and doesn't affect wide angle at all.

Andrewteee said:

Test driving an FZ1000 for an Alaska trip this summer. So far looks great!

Mine arrived without a lens cap. Is that standard? Seems like a large piece of glass to not have any sort of protection over it.

Click to expand...

Now you're getting me jealous - you have an FZ1000 and you're going to Alaska, the only state I haven't yet visited! I think you've got the right tool for the job, so all I can do is wish you a great trip and expect you'll be posting some photos from the trip.

As noted, a lens cap should have been provided but Panasonic stopped including the tether cord. Perhaps the tether they've been using on prior FZ models was too short for the FZ1000 lens so they decided not to include the tether cord?

--
Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

ANAYV said:

Andrewteee said:

Test driving an FZ1000 for an Alaska trip this summer. So far looks great!

Mine arrived without a lens cap. Is that standard? Seems like a large piece of glass to not have any sort of protection over it.

Click to expand...

Should of came with lens cap.

I am also going to Alaska this summer. First time on a cruise ship !

FZ1000 and few other cameras will be joining me

ANAYV

Click to expand...

Hi ANAYV

Mine came with a lens cap but no retainer cord, does the paperwork that came with it list a lens cap as box contents? If it does contact your supplier.

Thanks for the info on the lens cap. It seemed odd not to have one.

Ordered from Amazon, but everything about it seemed unused. Could have been an oversight or perhaps someone already tried it and left out the cap when they returned it. I've had Amazon send me obviously used cameras in the past. They correct it pretty quickly, but it's unfortunate they do that.

Just saw the new Nikon DL. Apparently, it won't be available until late June, though. .

You have some fantastic shots there and because of your skill and knowledge could get probably get fabulous shots with whatever camera you used. That's my opinion. I also agree with your reasoning for having a fixed lense rather than the weight of a single lens reflex. I have had a lot of fun with the people on the Sony Cybershot Forum and Panasonic forum on Dpreview. I think most of us have SLR's but are enjoying and appreciating the fixed lens like the Z1000, the Sony Cybershot, and others.

KittehsRool said:

Also - I suggest you get a UV filter - not for the UV filtering but to protect that big front lens.

I got this one -

Amazon UK

It's only 3 mm thick and doesn't affect wide angle at all.

Click to expand...

Im not that profesional but every serious photographer will state that you lower the IQ of the lens and get al lot more of flaring and color diffraction by adding a UV-filter for protection.

It is even more risk because of the fact that by bumping the UV-filter can break and the glass bits and pieces scratching the first lens coating/surface.

Its something a shop will advise because of old habits , the old film camera's needed a UV protection in summer or high sun places. The new digital systems don't need UV protection anymore. (i bought a clearlens filter for when im going to the beach and well ive used it exactly 5 times now i use a polarisation filter or nothing and a blowbulb to get rid of sand.;-))

Seems to me that especially in Alaska the good old Lens Hood and lenscab will be a better option for lens protection. Maybe a polarisation-filter to counter the colorbleeching in heavy sun and flaring/stars in shiny objects.

But still, trip to Alaska and time to use serveral camera's and a new toy, FZ1000, i envy you..

spike29 said:

KittehsRool said:

Also - I suggest you get a UV filter - not for the UV filtering but to protect that big front lens.

I got this one -

Amazon UK

It's only 3 mm thick and doesn't affect wide angle at all.

Click to expand...

Im not that profesional but every serious photographer will state that you lower the IQ of the lens and get al lot more of flaring and color diffraction by adding a UV-filter for protection.

It is even more risk because of the fact that by bumping the UV-filter can break and the glass bits and pieces scratching the first lens coating/surface.

Its something a shop will advise because of old habits , the old film camera's needed a UV protection in summer or high sun places. The new digital systems don't need UV protection anymore. (i bought a clearlens filter for when im going to the beach and well ive used it exactly 5 times now i use a polarisation filter or nothing and a blowbulb to get rid of sand.;-))

Seems to me that especially in Alaska the good old Lens Hood and lenscab will be a better option for lens protection. Maybe a polarisation-filter to counter the colorbleeching in heavy sun and flaring/stars in shiny objects.

But still, trip to Alaska and time to use serveral camera's and a new toy, FZ1000, i envy you..

Click to expand...

I used UV filters all the time, back when I had standard-definition, analog camcorders. Their equivalent pixel-size was .315-Megapixels. But with the 8-MP to 20-MP cameras I've had since, a whole different thing exists. With these much higher resolutions, those filters will degrade the image, in a way you'd never have seen, when you were recording in VHS.

I always keep long and wide lens hoods on my cameras and in 15 years have never had any damage to the surface of a lens. Filters are a nuisance, anyway. They are just one more thing to have to buy and clean. I once paid $60. (in 1988 money) for the top brand of a filter. After a dozen cleanings, the many layers of coatings began wearing off unevenly, making the surface look like a contour map.

ANAYV said:

I am also going to Alaska this summer. First time on a cruise ship !

FZ1000 and few other cameras will be joining me

ANAYV

Click to expand...

Your first cruise! I'm envious.

I was never interested in going on a cruise. Thought it would be full of old folks and be very boring. Then my work bought my a 3-day mini-cruise as a thank you for cancelling my holiday to finish an important project. But that cruise was over-booked so the cruise line offered us a cruise a few weeks later but for 7 days and with a balcony cabin.

Long story short, I had an incredibly good time. Service was excellent and I managed to get over the sheer decadence of it. There were people of all ages and yeah, quite a few older people. But I actually preferred having older people on board because it turns out that I really enjoyed the laid back atmosphere. We've since done a 3-day cruise from LA to Ensenada and I didn't enjoy that at all due to all the younger people who were on-board to party and get wasted. We also found some good deals the last couple of years so for the past 2 summers we've cruised to Alaska.

What I really enjoyed about the Alaska cruise is the fact that you're almost always close to shore or an island so there's always something to look at. If you spend time watching the water, you're guaranteed to see either humpback whales, orcas, or dall's porpoises (which look like small orcas). The reach of the FZ1000 will let you get good photos of them.

In theory any glass in front a decent lens will degrade the IQ.

But there are risks of dust, scratches and physical impact. I dropped my camera with a sigma lens when I was in the US mountains years ago, it hit hard on lens (front), it smashed UV filter to pieces and deformed the metal ring of it ... I spent couple hours removed the ring (cut it open) and my lens was like never happened.

Since then, I buy GOOD UV glasses and make it stay on most of my lenses unless it is >=100mm. I do remove them if I photo moon ... otherwise it may make ghost spot.

daqk said:

In theory any glass in front a decent lens will degrade the IQ.

But there are risks of dust, scratches and physical impact. I dropped my camera with a sigma lens when I was in the US mountains years ago, it hit hard on lens (front), it smashed UV filter to pieces and deformed the metal ring of it ... I spent couple hours removed the ring (cut it open) and my lens was like never happened.

Since then, I buy GOOD UV glasses and make it stay on most of my lenses unless it is >=100mm. I do remove them if I photo moon ... otherwise it may make ghost spot.

Click to expand...

You have proved what I have said all along. The cost of replacing a decent UV filter is far less than a lens, and besides, your trip in the mountains could have been spoiled if not for the filter. You can't take photos without a lens. Perhaps you had others, but then again not the one you would have lost.

Filters today are very well made, and as a matter of fact, their optics can sometimes rival the glass behind them. Just make sure you purchase good quality that's all. I have never had an issue with any of my B+W filters. Whether on the lens or off, the IQ is the same.

Cheers

Wayne

Bangers and Mash said:

daqk said:

In theory any glass in front a decent lens will degrade the IQ.

But there are risks of dust, scratches and physical impact. I dropped my camera with a sigma lens when I was in the US mountains years ago, it hit hard on lens (front), it smashed UV filter to pieces and deformed the metal ring of it ... I spent couple hours removed the ring (cut it open) and my lens was like never happened.

Since then, I buy GOOD UV glasses and make it stay on most of my lenses unless it is >=100mm. I do remove them if I photo moon ... otherwise it may make ghost spot.

Click to expand...

You have proved what I have said all along. The cost of replacing a decent UV filter is far less than a lens, and besides, your trip in the mountains could have been spoiled if not for the filter. You can't take photos without a lens. Perhaps you had others, but then again not the one you would have lost.

Filters today are very well made, and as a matter of fact, their optics can sometimes rival the glass behind them. Just make sure you purchase good quality that's all. I have never had an issue with any of my B+W filters. Whether on the lens or off, the IQ is the same.

Click to expand...

That's part of the issue - people buy a £5 filter then become all "Oh noes, it's horrible, don't use a filter".

That's not to say we all need to buy £150 filters - dearer is not always better, there's a cost=quality belief too.

Lop of the bottom 20%, lop off the top 20%... then chose something out of that middle 60% range...and you won't go too far wrong.

The filter I use is a very good one, multi coated, thin, light, made in Germany - I don't even see ghosting on moon shots.

Bangers and Mash said:

Cheers

Wayne

Click to expand...

KittehsRool said:

Bangers and Mash said:

daqk said:

In theory any glass in front a decent lens will degrade the IQ.

But there are risks of dust, scratches and physical impact. I dropped my camera with a sigma lens when I was in the US mountains years ago, it hit hard on lens (front), it smashed UV filter to pieces and deformed the metal ring of it ... I spent couple hours removed the ring (cut it open) and my lens was like never happened.

Since then, I buy GOOD UV glasses and make it stay on most of my lenses unless it is >=100mm. I do remove them if I photo moon ... otherwise it may make ghost spot.

Click to expand...

You have proved what I have said all along. The cost of replacing a decent UV filter is far less than a lens, and besides, your trip in the mountains could have been spoiled if not for the filter. You can't take photos without a lens. Perhaps you had others, but then again not the one you would have lost.

Filters today are very well made, and as a matter of fact, their optics can sometimes rival the glass behind them. Just make sure you purchase good quality that's all. I have never had an issue with any of my B+W filters. Whether on the lens or off, the IQ is the same.

Click to expand...

That's part of the issue - people buy a £5 filter then become all "Oh noes, it's horrible, don't use a filter".

Click to expand...

Yes, you get what you pay for when you try to go cheap.

Member said:

That's not to say we all need to buy £150 filters - dearer is not always better, there's a cost=quality belief too.

Click to expand...

One doesn't need to break the bank in order to purchase quality. Mid range B+W filters fill the bill. They are optically awesome. I do not see any difference whatsoever in IQ whether I have it on or not.

Member said:

Lop of the bottom 20%, lop off the top 20%... then chose something out of that middle 60% range...and you won't go too far wrong.

The filter I use is a very good one, multi coated, thin, light, made in Germany - I don't even see ghosting on moon shots.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Member said:

Member said:

Cheers

Wayne

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Don't really have an opinion about the haters, however I do think your images are awesome!

KittehsRool said:

The filter I use is a very good one, multi coated, thin, light, made in Germany - I don't even see ghosting on moon shots.

Click to expand...

Actually I just took a full moon shot couple days ago, moon was very bright ... my filter was B+W F-PRO, and I saw slightly ghost until I removed it (mind you I have a same size filter Hoya Pro1 MC made less ghost almost unnoticeable). Still I found often if you take the filter off you might be surprised to see the difference. But in reality, once I have it on I don't bother remove it unless I notice the "issue" under some tricky situations.

daqk said:

KittehsRool said:

The filter I use is a very good one, multi coated, thin, light, made in Germany - I don't even see ghosting on moon shots.

Click to expand...

Actually I just took a full moon shot couple days ago, moon was very bright ... my filter was B+W F-PRO, and I saw slightly ghost until I removed it (mind you I have a same size filter Hoya Pro1 MC made less ghost almost unnoticeable). Still I found often if you take the filter off you might be surprised to see the difference. But in reality, once I have it on I don't bother remove it unless I notice the "issue" under some tricky situations.

Click to expand...

perhaps i was wrong to imply ALL moon shots - you can get ghosties in some situations..

I'd rather have the protection.

It's like the saying about condoms: I'd rather have one and not need it than not have one and need it..

And, like a condom, you can always pull it off... Ha!

You have my sympathy. I too have noticed this elitism, and find it amusing. (I'm too old to be bothered!)

I'd like to make the following observation: The Fz1000 and 220/300 community seem to be posting more adventurous and technically challenging pictures than the DSLR and M4/3 bunch.

I believe that it's much more challenging getting good shots with a DSLR. When people ask if the Fz300 is good for sports, and people hesitate - saying things like "pros use DSLRs for sports" - let them try covering a football game with a DSLR. There is a reason sports geeks are just that, and that is the fact that it takes years of practice and several camera bodies to capture a game on a DSLR. Years before you can expect a series of "good enough to publish" shots. They say that focusing is better on DSLRs - well - every lens I could afford for my Canon hunted focus and would spend ages doing so. You would have to follow the game meticulously in order to capture good shots. And when the game moved close you were lost, because the long zoom lens did not extend wide enough to capture the game up close. Whereas the 1000/300 - just hand it to any experienced amateur photographer and she or he will be able to deliver 100 sharp, well composed images of the game without much more instruction than browsing the manual. (And after picking up a few tips here on DP.)

And notice how many bird photos FZ1000/300 people post? That's because you have to be a bird geek to manage with a DSLR. Why? Heavy camera, slow lenses, slow focusing, no 4k photo, bad OIS, etc etc. The DSLR bird geeks have (as their sports fellows) spent YEARS practicing...

So NO reason to feel inferior. The Lumix range allows you to achieve RESULTS in the form of sharp, high quality images of your chosen subjects. That's what its all about!!

Hi, I searched this forum for FZ1000 and started reading a lot this weekend... because I am planning to buy one for my sister.

This post... the subject, sample photos, and many good responses... proved very userul.

Thank you!

PS: As a bonus, the priced dropped $100 today... even better. I get to buy a couple of memory cards and extra batteries.