Chances of any FZ2500 succesor?

Jon_T · Sep 20, 2017

jochicago said:
Jon_T said:

jochicago said:

I have the FZ2500 for video work. The stills are good too, but if I needed a stills camera, why go with such as small sensor given the many options available for DSLR/mirrorless? ...

Click to expand...

Very simple, there are no equivalent single zoom lens for a DSLR/ ILC that can match the FZ2500 or RX10 III/ IV lenses zoom range and max apertures.

For general purpose/ travel photog I'm happy with the FZ1000's RAW image quality "I" can get to use in lieu of my 70D DSLR up to 1600 ISO.

Prior the the FZ1000 for general purpose/ travel photog carried the 70D with 15-85mm IS and the 60D with the 55-250mm STM IS for the same 24-400mm zoom range.

jochicago said:

... I hope the next FZxxx is an upgrade on the video front. Could use a 4/3 sensor and no crop when recording 4K. Otherwise, I cannot imagine it would be worth upgrading, just like the FZ2500 is hardly worth the upgrade from the FZ1000 for stills.

Click to expand...

Apparently NOT taking in consideration the size, weight, cost etc. to have a 24-480mm f/2.8-4.5 equiv. lens for a 4/3 sensor. It would be around twice the size, weight and cost of the Lumix G Vario 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. Lens.

ALL of the APS-C DSLR 18-2XX lens need to be stopped down to f/8 or more to get the lens' optimum edge-to-edge sharpness, and all have much slower max apertures.

Cheers,
Jon

Click to expand...

At around the same price you can roughly match the zoom range with APSC 18-55 + 55-250 (I personally don't like that combo, but price-wise it would work / a better walk-around lens is the 18-135). ...

As I clearly noted the main reason for the enthusiasts bridge-type long zoom range cameras is the CONVENIENCE a SINGLE CAMERA/ LENS solution.

Not just to eliminate having to carry multiple lenses, but also eliminate the need to be switching lenses. Since my 35mm film SLR days of late '70's and currently with DSLR's, "I" preferred having two camera bodies rather than having to switching lenses.

Over the past 40+ years used many different SLR/ DSLR bodies and lenses combinations.

Hence IMHO to make a true "apples-to-apples" comparison between a FZ1000, FZ2500, or
RX10 III/ IV with a DSLR or 4/3 ILC, the DSLR or 4/3 ILC should have a zoom lens with zoom range as close as possible to FZ1000, FZ2500, or RX10 III/ IV; i.e., a APS-C DSLR with the Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 would provide the closest zoom range but be larger, heavier and with slower max apertures.

As I noted in my post above prior to the FZ1000 I was using 70D w/ 15-85mm IS and the 60D with the 55-250mm STM IS for the same 24-400mm zoom range. FZ1000 25-400mm f/2.8-4 offers FAR more convenience for general purpose/ travel shooting, much smaller/ lighter and RAW IQ comparable to 70D/ 60D and lenses.

jochicago said:
... When it comes to zoom, with APSC At 250mm you have a 400mm FF equivalent shot. If you crop to half in post, you have a 800mm FF equivalent at 12 megapixels, enough for 13x20" prints and those pixels will have better quality (noise, clarity).

Math not correct. A 6000 x 4000 (24 MP) crop to 50% would be 3000 x 2000 which is 6MP.

jochicago said:
Also, on my wishlist for the next FZxxx:
... Asking for a larger sensor and more powerful processing, ...

Wish lists are fine, but should be realistic. Doubt very much that Pany or Sony will make a FZ2500 or RX10 successor with a 4/3 or APS-C for two reasons:

• Size, weight, costs—camera mfgs do market analysis and are not going market a product unless they know it will provide enough sales. (e.g., Nikon not doing DL 1"-sensor series cameras)

Rather than making the RX10 Sony could have released a updated version of their
Cyber-shot DSC-R1.

Given the size/ weight of the DSC-R1 with a 24-120mm f/2.8-4.8, same camera even with a 24-200mm f/2.8-4.8 lens would be considerably larger.

• Doubt Pany or Sony wants to market a bridge type zoom with large sensor that could take away sales from their mirror-less ILC's; just as mfgs omit/ reduce features in their entry level DSLR's as not to impact sales of their advance DSLR's

Bottom line its all about profits (ROI).

Cheers,
Jon

jochicago · Sep 20, 2017

Jon_T said:
jochicago said:

At around the same price you can roughly match the zoom range with APSC 18-55 + 55-250 (I personally don't like that combo, but price-wise it would work / a better walk-around lens is the 18-135). ...

Click to expand...

As I clearly noted the main reason for the enthusiasts bridge-type long zoom range cameras is the CONVENIENCE a SINGLE CAMERA/ LENS solution.

Not just to eliminate having to carry multiple lenses, but also eliminate the need to be switching lenses. Since my 35mm film SLR days of late '70's and currently with DSLR's, "I" preferred having two camera bodies rather than having to switching lenses.

Over the past 40+ years used many different SLR/ DSLR bodies and lenses combinations.

Hence IMHO to make a true "apples-to-apples" comparison between a FZ1000, FZ2500, or
RX10 III/ IV with a DSLR or 4/3 ILC, the DSLR or 4/3 ILC should have a zoom lens with zoom range as close as possible to FZ1000, FZ2500, or RX10 III/ IV; i.e., a APS-C DSLR with the Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 would provide the closest zoom range but be larger, heavier and with slower max apertures.

As I noted in my post above prior to the FZ1000 I was using 70D w/ 15-85mm IS and the 60D with the 55-250mm STM IS for the same 24-400mm zoom range. FZ1000 25-400mm f/2.8-4 offers FAR more convenience for general purpose/ travel shooting, much smaller/ lighter and RAW IQ comparable to 70D/ 60D and lenses.

Jon_T said:

... When it comes to zoom, with APSC At 250mm you have a 400mm FF equivalent shot. If you crop to half in post, you have a 800mm FF equivalent at 12 megapixels, enough for 13x20" prints and those pixels will have better quality (noise, clarity).

Click to expand...

Math not correct. A 6000 x 4000 (24 MP) crop to 50% would be 3000 x 2000 which is 6MP.

Jon_T said:

Also, on my wishlist for the next FZxxx:
... Asking for a larger sensor and more powerful processing, ...

Click to expand...

Wish lists are fine, but should be realistic.

I understand the convenience. Frankly, I bought the FZ2500 because of all the features in one package. Also cheaper for all the features (4k recording in camera, ND filters, mega zoom lens designed for video). If I had to go buy all those features separately, the price tag would have been larger. I could easily justify paying more if the sensor was also larger, hence my whishlist.

And I do believe my wish items are realistic in terms of production. The question if there's a market. To answer one of your points, the lens wouldn't have to be much larger, probably not larger at all. Simply drop the F a little and the depth of field could be the same when you compensate for the larger sensor.

For the serious enthusiast, convenience has to be compared to IQ. Otherwise we would all be shooting with 1/3" sensors and mega zooms that fit in your pocket. From that perspective, I encourage the enthusiasts to look closely at larger sensor DSLRs. Like I said, your opinion may vary, but A 60D with the 18-135mm EFS gives you FF equivalent of 28-216, which is an incredibly usable range already. If you buy that combo, you might as well never remove the lens and just walk around with that setup. IQ and low-light performance will be much higher, plus you retain the option to get other lenses down the road (like a prime 50mm and be at magazine-level IQ quality for just $125 more). If that idea doesn't appeal, the latest FZxxx is a great single-package alternative for sure. But not smaller, and not the same IQ when pushed, nor cheaper than APSC setups.

BTW Jon, you may want to double check your math before you correct others. 6MP is not half of 24MP. That's a fourth. When you said:
6000 x 4000 crop to 50% would be 3000 x 2000

That's not right. You halved both sides. Half of 6000 x 4000 is simply cutting one of those sides in 2. So 3000x 4000. So for anyone reading, if you want a 800mm shot out of a 400mm lens at 24MP, simply frame vertically using only half of the frame (top or bottom), then in post you can cut the image in half and end up with a 12MP 3000x4000px that is still great for prints of pretty much any size.

kkardster · Sep 20, 2017

jochicago said:
BTW Jon, you may want to double check your math before you correct others. 6MP is not half of 24MP. That's a fourth. When you said:
6000 x 4000 crop to 50% would be 3000 x 2000

That's not right. You halved both sides. Half of 6000 x 4000 is simply cutting one of those sides in 2. So 3000x 4000. So for anyone reading, if you want a 800mm shot out of a 400mm lens at 24MP, simply frame vertically using only half of the frame (top or bottom), then in post you can cut the image in half and end up with a 12MP 3000x4000px that is still great for prints of pretty much any size.

Try reducing any photo by 50% in your photo editor and its result will be as Jon calculated - 1/4 of the original size. How can you half only one side of an image?

jochicago · Sep 20, 2017

kkardster said:
jochicago said:

BTW Jon, you may want to double check your math before you correct others. 6MP is not half of 24MP. That's a fourth. When you said:
6000 x 4000 crop to 50% would be 3000 x 2000

That's not right. You halved both sides. Half of 6000 x 4000 is simply cutting one of those sides in 2. So 3000x 4000. So for anyone reading, if you want a 800mm shot out of a 400mm lens at 24MP, simply frame vertically using only half of the frame (top or bottom), then in post you can cut the image in half and end up with a 12MP 3000x4000px that is still great for prints of pretty much any size.

Click to expand...

Try reducing any photo by 50% in your photo editor and its result will be as Jon calculated - 1/4 of the original size. How can you half only one side of an image?

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

I probably wasn't clear in my explanation.

You shoot vertical. Now you have a shot that is 6000px tall and 4000px wide. In camera you frame for the top half of the shot, so what you want in frame is only at the top half,your subject, background, etc, put everything in your composition in the top half of the vertical frame.

Then in post you have a vertical picture that is 6000px tall, and all the stuff you want in the picture is in the top half. Simply crop exactly by the middle (discarding the bottom half), to end up with a WIDE image that is 4000 X 3000 and 12MP, and the framing is zoomed in by 2x of the original camera frame. The ratio is not ideal for most print sizes, but from there you can adjust/further crop to your selected size and still have enough MPs for most applications.

See example attached.

Simple crop to end up with only half, new wide composition and the framing has effectively become 2X. It is now half the resolution of the original file, but still plenty to work with:

Jon_T · Sep 21, 2017

jochicago said:
Jon_T said:

jochicago said:

At around the same price you can roughly match the zoom range with APSC 18-55 + 55-250 (I personally don't like that combo, but price-wise it would work / a better walk-around lens is the 18-135). ...

Click to expand...

As I clearly noted the main reason for the enthusiasts bridge-type long zoom range cameras is the CONVENIENCE a SINGLE CAMERA/ LENS solution.

Not just to eliminate having to carry multiple lenses, but also eliminate the need to be switching lenses. Since my 35mm film SLR days of late '70's and currently with DSLR's, "I" preferred having two camera bodies rather than having to switching lenses.

Over the past 40+ years used many different SLR/ DSLR bodies and lenses combinations.

Hence IMHO to make a true "apples-to-apples" comparison between a FZ1000, FZ2500, or
RX10 III/ IV with a DSLR or 4/3 ILC, the DSLR or 4/3 ILC should have a zoom lens with zoom range as close as possible to FZ1000, FZ2500, or RX10 III/ IV; i.e., a APS-C DSLR with the Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 would provide the closest zoom range but be larger, heavier and with slower max apertures.

As I noted in my post above prior to the FZ1000 I was using 70D w/ 15-85mm IS and the 60D with the 55-250mm STM IS for the same 24-400mm zoom range. FZ1000 25-400mm f/2.8-4 offers FAR more convenience for general purpose/ travel shooting, much smaller/ lighter and RAW IQ comparable to 70D/ 60D and lenses.

jochicago said:

... When it comes to zoom, with APSC At 250mm you have a 400mm FF equivalent shot. If you crop to half in post, you have a 800mm FF equivalent at 12 megapixels, enough for 13x20" prints and those pixels will have better quality (noise, clarity).

Click to expand...

Math not correct. A 6000 x 4000 (24 MP) crop to 50% would be 3000 x 2000 which is 6MP.

jochicago said:

Also, on my wishlist for the next FZxxx:
... Asking for a larger sensor and more powerful processing, ...

Click to expand...

Wish lists are fine, but should be realistic.

Click to expand...

....And I do believe my wish items are realistic in terms of production. The question if there's a market....

Which is what I posted. :-| Point being not too realistic if chance of being mfg are slim to none. As I also referenced Sony would be the most probable camera mfg to market a ASP-C long zoom bridge type camera as Sony already "been there/ done that" with the DSC-R1 and revised/up date the design using exiting components from their mirror-less cameras.

jochicago said:
... To answer one of your points, the lens wouldn't have to be much larger, probably not larger at all. Simply drop the F a little and the depth of field could be the same when you compensate for the larger sensor...

Again as I already posted, lens would be similar to the size/ weight of the ASP-C 18-2XXmm/ 16-300mm super zooms with small f/3.5-6.3 max apertures, and overall mediocre IQ.

jochicago said:
... For the serious enthusiast, convenience has to be compared to IQ. ...

The delima of balancing of photo gear, IQ, cost been around for MANY YEARS; nothing new.

jochicago said:
... but A 60D with the 18-135mm EFS gives you FF equivalent of 28-216, ...

Per the DxO Optical tests on the EF-S 18-135mm IS STM its actual focal length is 17.7-124.7mm, with the Canon's 1.6X factor equiv focal length is 28.32-199.72mm. And the actual light transmission to the sensor at max tele is f/6.2. If you've read various lens tests over the years (as I have) you be aware that not uncommon that a lens "marked" focal lengths and apertures do not match the lens actual/ measured focal lengths and aperture.

jochicago said:
.. which is an incredibly usable range already. If you buy that combo, you might as well never remove the lens and just walk around with that setup. ...

As I noted owned the EF-S 18-200mm, EF-S 18-135 IS, and EF-S 18-135 IS STM. But for my photog needs the 18mm not wide enough, hence why settled on the EF-S 15-85mm and EF-S 55-250mm IS STM.

jochicago said:
... IQ and low-light performance will be much higher, plus you retain the option to get other lenses down the road (like a prime 50mm and be at magazine-level IQ quality for just $125 more). If that idea doesn't appeal, the latest FZxxx is a great single-package alternative for sure. But not smaller, and not the same IQ when pushed, nor cheaper than APSC setups. ..

"Low light", "pushed" to vague of terms to be useful. If you looked at my "Gear" would know I have 6D and L lenses that I use in lower lighting that requires 3200+ ISO with f/4 lenses to maintain fast enough to prevent subject movement.

Since you have no images in your DPR Gallery or posted images in your post unable to see what you're noting as "much higher" IQ.

From "my" PP of FZ1000 RAW image up to 1600 ISO compare quite well to 60D or 70D images. Like to see some of your 60D images that are "much higher" IQ than the FZ1000 1600 ISO image in my above post at similar exposure settings.

No brainier that at lower lighting and 1600+ISO's a larger APS-C sensor will do better than a 1"-Type sensor hence why I've kept my ASP-C/ FF DSLR's.

jochicago said:
... BTW Jon, you may want to double check your math before you correct others. 6MP is not half of 24MP. That's a fourth. When you said:
6000 x 4000 crop to 50% would be 3000 x 2000.

That's not right. You halved both sides. Half of 6000 x 4000 is simply cutting one of those sides in 2. So 3000x 4000. So for anyone reading, if you want a 800mm shot out of a 400mm lens at 24MP, simply frame vertically using only half of the frame (top or bottom), then in post you can cut the image in half and end up with a 12MP 3000x4000px that is still great for prints of pretty much any size.

By your comments you do not understand that to obtain 2X factor of lens optical focal length via cropping, you would need to do a 50% crop of the sensor's SIZE (L & W); NOT the sensor's MP. e.g., read HERE and HERE.

As Bruce replied to you, can see this VERY EASILY with any image editor by resizing the image by 50%.

Can also see this using the FZ2500's "Extended optical zoom" (just a sensor crop):

FZ2500 PDF Advance Features Manual; page 196

With the FZ1000 the "EOZ" the two "Crop" options available at 146mm/ 400mm equiv; with the default 3:2 aspect ratio:
• 10M (MP) 3888 x 2592 which provide FOV equiv of 561mm
• 5M (MP) 2736 x 1824 which provide FOV equiv of 800mm

Note that the 5M (MP) 2736 x 1824 is a 50% crop of the sensor's 5472 x 3648 20 MP resolution, and provides a 800mm FOV equiv. ( 2X of the 400mm)

FWIW image below combo of full optical with EXM 10 MP, and iZoom for a 1124mm equiv.

IQ good enough for display viewing and small prints.

Cheers,
Jon

jochicago · Sep 21, 2017

Jon,

Thank you for clarifying yourself. Since I'm new to this forum, until now your posts seemed needlessly prickly and focused on irrelevant minutia. Fearing a misinterpretation I pressed on, but this last email made it clear my first instinct was right.

Re: Again as I already posted, lens would be similar to the size/ weight of the ASP-C 18-2XXmm/ 16-300mm super zooms with small f/3.5-6.3 max apertures, and overall mediocre IQ.

Why do you find ways to phrase things like a disagreement? We agreed on the imaginary size of the lens, which is the same size the FZ2500 lens has now. There's no disagreement here. Also, the mediocrity of IQ is debatable (your "mediocre" might be my "perfectly good for 4K video"), and probably exactly what we get out of these FZ cameras anyway. That type of IQ was what I expected when I bought the FZ2500, and pretty much what I'm seeing come out of it, thus I'm satisfied.

RE: The delima of balancing of photo gear, IQ, cost been around for MANY YEARS; nothing new.

Do you imagine I was saying it is new? I was framing my comments for the people reading trying to make a purchase decision. You should really sit on your ideas more before jumping at the keyboard.

RE: Per the DxO Optical tests on the EF-S 18-135mm IS STM its actual focal length is 17.7-124.7mm...

Who cares. So the stated manufacturer numbers are some way off, they always are. The FZxxx is marketed as a 1" sensor when in reality it is sub 16mm. You seem to enjoy creating and furthering pointless arguments. I don't indulge.

RE: But for my photog needs the 18mm not wide enough

I understand that. At APSC that is around 28mm, which is seldom wide enough for wide applications. In fact, at 24mm on the FZ2500 I'll be needing a wide adapter for my next video shoot (filming a seminar and want the entire front of the room in frame). So the argument of it not being wide enough hits on the FZxxx too.

RE: "Low light", "pushed" to vague of terms to be useful [...] FZ1000 RAW image up to 1600 ISO compare quite well to 60D or 70D images

I'm not comparing equipment sizes with you, seek a fight elsewhere. I did detail my analysis of the FZ2500 vs APSC in another post. My finding is that the ISO performance comes to a useless level of noise past 1250 ISO. If you think you can hit 1600, good for your sensibilities to accept more noise. For my applications that level of noise (and loss of color fidelity and dynamic range) is too much. A larger sensor, by simple physics, will hold better clarity, dynamic range and lower noise for a few more stops, which is the difference between a hard cap at 800-1250 ISO with the FZxxx or at 3200 ISO with an APSC sensor. In low light, this is a huge distinction that can mean the difference between being able to get the picture or not (to entry-level commercial standards, you go ahead and define your own standards anyway that pleases you.)

RE: By your comments you do not understand that to obtain 2X factor of lens optical focal length via cropping...

Look, I'm stopping here. If you think half of 24 is 6, go right ahead. I tried explain further in case I was being obscure in my explanation. If you don't like my explanation, go right ahead with your life. For anyone else reading, here's the recap:

FZ2500 vs DSLR for long range shots

The FZ claims 400mm FF equivalent, which sounds great vs the 250mm you get out of your typical cheap and readily available Canon EFS lens for APSC. Keep in mind that Canon has a crop factor of 1.6 on APSC sensors, which makes the 250mm a 400mm FF equivalent, so thereabouts the same zoom range on the tele side. When it comes to IQ, they won't be on the same level though, because the APSC is gathering many times more light, which will result in less noise, better colors, depth of field, etc. With shooting a higher IQ level comes being able to stretch the images more, like cutting it in half and still ending up with a very high quality image you can use for all purposes including large prints. (I'm not saying you can't do this to FZxxx pictures, I'm saying that anyway you choose to hack those pictures, doing the same to a shot from an APSC will hold better.)

By simple physics, when you cut an image in half, the framing of it becomes 2X from the original (I posted a simple example, I don't understand how this is hard to grasp.) So, if you care about long range shots, shooting on APSC with a 400mm FF equivalent lens will get you much more usable images up to a range closer to 800mm (as long as you can get a good shot of your subject, you can then crop /zoom in post and have better pixels to work with vs a much smaller sensor - this is simply physics of light and the reason we would all prefer to be on FF if the price and size could magically drop.)

So, the overarching point, even though I am a happy FZ2500 owner and recommend it just fine, I'm not ready to evade the simple fact that:

A 60D with a 55-250mm lens on it is roughly the same bulk as the FZ2500, has the same long range, and will shoot better pictures. That you are even arguing that point shows you spar for sport and/or indulge in self delusion.

Do what you will with that information. If you disagree, bless your heart, and find a new sparring partner 'cause I don't indulge in pointless arguments.

I'm off - don't enjoy stealing the last word, but I enjoy less getting trapped with a loud-mouth in a small room. Have a wonderful day.

knobunc · Sep 22, 2017

Digital Nigel said:
Mainly A6000 with 55-210 (Galapagos Islands):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157647255026814

FZ1000 (New Zealand):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157647255026814

RX10M3 (Antarctica):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157678326523803
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157682841531264

Thanks for those albums. I'm contemplating an FZ2500 to take to the Galapagos in the spring. I took an FZ200 last time we went, but it was just a bit washed out in bright light.

I'm curious what you'd recommend (or really anyone else too!) to take as a large travel camera. I see the choices as:

FZ2500
RX10M3 (or 4?)
Some mirrorless camera with a good zoom lens on it

I'd really rather not spend more than $1.2k on it...

Thanks!

Digital Nigel · Sep 22, 2017

knobunc said:
Digital Nigel said:

Mainly A6000 with 55-210 (Galapagos Islands):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157647255026814

FZ1000 (New Zealand):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157647255026814

RX10M3 (Antarctica):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157678326523803
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157682841531264

Click to expand...

Thanks for those albums. I'm contemplating an FZ2500 to take to the Galapagos in the spring. I took an FZ200 last time we went, but it was just a bit washed out in bright light.

I'm curious what you'd recommend (or really anyone else too!) to take as a large travel camera. I see the choices as:

FZ2500

RX10M3 (or 4?)

Some mirrorless camera with a good zoom lens on it

Of those, I'd go with the RX10M3, as its price is already coming down. The M4 will have better focus tracking and much faster burst mode, but in most other respects isn't much changed. So the image quality should be identical, but the M4 will be more versatile, being better for sports and action photography.

The FZ2500 will mainly be of interest for video, which I don't shoot.

I don't think an APS-C mirrorless + 2-3 lenses will beat the RX10M3 for image quality, but the ensemble will be bigger, heavier and more expensive. An expensive full frame ensemble will be better for image quality, but it will be many times more expensive and several times heavier.

Kharan · Sep 22, 2017

knobunc said:
Thanks for those albums. I'm contemplating an FZ2500 to take to the Galapagos in the spring. I took an FZ200 last time we went, but it was just a bit washed out in bright light.

I'm curious what you'd recommend (or really anyone else too!) to take as a large travel camera. I see the choices as:

FZ2500

RX10M3 (or 4?)

Some mirrorless camera with a good zoom lens on it

I'd really rather not spend more than $1.2k on it...

Thanks!

I went there two years ago, it's a wonderful place! I was rarely focal-length challenged with an APS-C camera and 70-300mm zoom there - I actually shot most of my best pictures around 200mm, because the most attractive animals are all relatively large.

I own an RX10M3 right now, and I'd feel more than satisfied with it for a Galapagos trip. The truth of the matter is that one gets to be so close to the fauna, and it moves so slowly, that unless you plan to dedicate your trip to BIF photos, fast AF and really long telephoto reach are completely unnecessary.

It's an incredible place to shoot video, on the other hand, so if you have even a passing interest in it I'd suggest you to bring a good camera for that.

If you're taking a cruise, it pays to carry your gear in very good, preferably waterproof bags, because the wet landings can really get wet. Also, there's a ton of snorkeling on the menu, usually, so bring an underwater camera or housing if you can.

jochicago · Sep 22, 2017

For stills, this is my personal opinion:

1. Top choice is Canon APSC (70D or so, doesn't even have to be new, Canon cams last decades). With the 18-135mm EFS for walk around, plus the 55-250mm for long shots. There's a bit of bulk but it is bearable if you want great shots. You can leave the second lens behind when going to town and still get great street photography up to 135mm EFS which is around 216mm FF equivalent. Here is the base kit at $1100:

Loading…

amzn.to

And here is the 250mm zoom lens, crazy cheap right now at under $150. My copy is inconceivably sharp for the price and supposed mid-quality level for this lens:

Loading…

amzn.to

2. FZ1000 for stills. The FZ2500 is not much of an improvement on the FZ1000 for stills. Same sensor and similar range, while the FZ1000 is cheaper. I would only look at the FZ2500 if you want to dabble in video, as it is a great video machine.

3. If you want to invest a bit more then: Sony RX10 III - slightly better IQ, better zoom range, allegedly weather sealed (which can make a big difference if you are taking it out to explore the islands - the FZxxx are not meant to take a beating).

Kharan · Sep 22, 2017

Jim N'AZ said:
I own both the 1k and the 2500 and this is my take regarding the Sony vs. The FZ 2500.

These are the functions I would have to give up by going from the 2500 over to the Sony: (I think) This list may not be exhaustive and is in no particular order of importance. And, yes, there are those functions that the Sony offers that the 1 year older 2500 does not offer, but I am responding to the OP from a 2500 owners perspective here.

I would lose the following fz2500 functions by going to the Sony.

1. Fully articulated LCD.

Yes, and it's a shame. I'd like one on my Sony.

Jim N'AZ said:
2. In camera focus stacking.

Yes.

Jim N'AZ said:
3. Neutral density filtering built-in.

Absolutely.

Jim N'AZ said:
4. Easy programmable individual Fn buttons w/o menu diving.

I've never used the new Panasonic approach, but is it that complicated to go into the menu? For me at least, it's setting the custom functions once and forgetting.

Jim N'AZ said:
5. 1/4000 sec. mech. shutter. (I do lots of flash work @ higher ss.

Right.

Jim N'AZ said:
6. Internal zooming and focusing. (Important here in dusty Arizona!)

I doubt this part, the lens still trombones. Also, from my own experience, the only good environmental seals on the RX10M3 are around the lens, so that's that.

Jim N'AZ said:
7. Switchable (mechanical switching) sloooow zoom speeds.

I don't get this, you think the Sony is slow? Or too fast? It has two selectable speeds in the menu, and the fast mode is really agile, plus the zoom lever has three different speed settings by touch. The slowest, in video, is glacial.

Jim N'AZ said:
8. Wireless flash control via pop-up flash (in my case to my remote Metz 64af).

Good point and a personal peeve of mine with the RX10's.

Jim N'AZ said:
9. Built-in selectable diffraction compensation control.

Sony has that built in, too, for all the good it does.

Jim N'AZ said:
10. AF sensitivity settings. (Perhaps Sony has this one under a different name)?

The RX10M4 will have them. The current models don't.

Jim N'AZ said:
11. Side door card slot. This is even better than it sounds!

ALL RX10's have had this. The door locks properly and isn't opened so easily, although it isn't the sturdiest design I've seen, by far (Pentax kicks everyone else to the curb in this regard).

Jim N'AZ said:
There may be more, but these are the ones that are important to me and at this point in time make it unlikely I would give these up for the more expensive Sony IV without these functions available.

A caveat here. I have not been able to study/read all reviews on the Sony and so I may have inadvertently missed something or things here, but it has not been intentional at all on my part.

Hope this is of some value to you as you work toward one or the other of these fine cameras. Oh, btw, my 2500 is sharp and the equal of my fz 1000 in the sharpness catagory.

Regards, Jim

I went the other day to my local Panasonic showroom to handle the FZ2500, as some of its features are certainly attractive, especially the DFD focusing (this was before the announcement of the RX10M4). However, there's no comparison between their lenses at the long end. The build quality didn't impress me - the FZ1000 feels really cheap, and the FZ2500 is only a small improvement. It makes no practical differente, but the alloy body of the RX10's feels incredibly reassuring, and the tight dials only reinforce that impression. Also, the video AF of the RX10M3 is superior to the FZ2500, noticeably so (I actually find it better even than on stills mode - I've tracked BIF at 600mm equivalent with the Sony for long periods with ease). I'd miss the high-speed video too. So, all in all, I walked out of the store with my choice reinforced, and not a GAS attack, as I feared.

PhotoTeach2 · Sep 22, 2017

Jim N'AZ said:
Jim N'AZ wrote:

PixelCowboy said:

XVOYAGERX said:

There are plenty of other forums here regarding this subject of the fz2500/2000 so-called image quality issues, so in the interests of me having to repeat myself over this issue again, and again, and again to `NO` AVAIL`(most people are not listening) they have already convinced themselves that the lens is soft, (many without even trying the camera out) which in most cases, `it is not` do a quick search and you will find the answers `IN THE OTHER FORUMS` to your question, frankly this totally overhyped subject is fast becoming boring, so I personally am refraining from answering to anything more about this boring subject!!

Click to expand...

I'm going by Raw examples from multiple reviewers, that I have ingested to my computer, and evaluated. I know that a lot of people say that they have good copies of fz2500, but a lot of the examples that I've seen are soft, and have verified it from the raws. Maybe they are ok for most people, but I can see the quality downgrade from what I'm used to. Not so much with the fz1000, I find the quality pretty decent, but I'm not sure if I'm missing out from too many features from the excellent fz2500.

Click to expand...

I own both the 1k and the 2500 and this is my take regarding the Sony vs. The FZ 2500.

These are the functions I would have to give up by going from the 2500 over to the Sony: (I think) This list may not be exhaustive and is in no particular order of importance. And, yes, there are those functions that the Sony offers that the 1 year older 2500 does not offer, but I am responding to the OP from a 2500 owners perspective here.

I would lose the following fz2500 functions by going to the Sony.

1. Fully articulated LCD.

2. In camera focus stacking.

3. Neutral density filtering built-in.

4. Easy programmable individual Fn buttons w/o menu diving.

5. 1/4000 sec. mech. shutter. (I do lots of flash work @ higher ss.

6. Internal zooming and focusing. (Important here in dusty Arizona!)

7. Switchable (mechanical switching) sloooow zoom speeds.

8. Wireless flash control via pop-up flash (in my case to my remote Metz 64af).

9. Built-in selectable diffraction compensation control.

10. AF sensitivity settings. (Perhaps Sony has this one under a different name)?

11. Side door card slot. This is even better than it sounds!

There may be more, but these are the ones that are important to me and at this point in time make it unlikely I would give these up for the more expensive Sony IV without these functions available.

A caveat here. I have not been able to study/read all reviews on the Sony and so I may have inadvertently missed something or things here, but it has not been intentional at all on my part.

Hope this is of some value to you as you work toward one or the other of these fine cameras. Oh, btw, my 2500 is sharp and the equal of my fz 1000 in the sharpness catagory.

Regards, Jim

You forgot "Pre-Burst" but I the 2500 has more advantages even for stills than the RX10.

The only advantage the RX10 has is the 600mm @/f4 and now the 25fps w/ C-AF, (and 960fps video).

If Panasonic could get the sensor, (and Leica could make an equivalent lens), it could be much better than the RX10.

Heck maybe Panny could incorporate DFD technology with the PD-AF to be even faster.

PhotoTeach2 · Sep 22, 2017

AusPhotographer said:
Does a bigger sensor than 1" mean bigger 'everything' especially the glass?

Digital Nigel · Sep 22, 2017

PhotoTeach2 said:
PhotoTeach2 said:

Jim N'AZ wrote:

PixelCowboy said:

XVOYAGERX said:

There are plenty of other forums here regarding this subject of the fz2500/2000 so-called image quality issues, so in the interests of me having to repeat myself over this issue again, and again, and again to NO AVAIL(most people are not listening) they have already convinced themselves that the lens is soft, (many without even trying the camera out) which in most cases,it is notdo a quick search and you will find the answersIN THE OTHER FORUMS` to your question, frankly this totally overhyped subject is fast becoming boring, so I personally am refraining from answering to anything more about this boring subject!!

Click to expand...

I'm going by Raw examples from multiple reviewers, that I have ingested to my computer, and evaluated. I know that a lot of people say that they have good copies of fz2500, but a lot of the examples that I've seen are soft, and have verified it from the raws. Maybe they are ok for most people, but I can see the quality downgrade from what I'm used to. Not so much with the fz1000, I find the quality pretty decent, but I'm not sure if I'm missing out from too many features from the excellent fz2500.

Click to expand...

I own both the 1k and the 2500 and this is my take regarding the Sony vs. The FZ 2500.

These are the functions I would have to give up by going from the 2500 over to the Sony: (I think) This list may not be exhaustive and is in no particular order of importance. And, yes, there are those functions that the Sony offers that the 1 year older 2500 does not offer, but I am responding to the OP from a 2500 owners perspective here.

I would lose the following fz2500 functions by going to the Sony.

Fully articulated LCD.

In camera focus stacking.

Neutral density filtering built-in.

Easy programmable individual Fn buttons w/o menu diving.

1/4000 sec. mech. shutter. (I do lots of flash work @ higher ss.

Internal zooming and focusing. (Important here in dusty Arizona!)

Switchable (mechanical switching) sloooow zoom speeds.

Wireless flash control via pop-up flash (in my case to my remote Metz 64af).

Built-in selectable diffraction compensation control.

AF sensitivity settings. (Perhaps Sony has this one under a different name)?

Side door card slot. This is even better than it sounds!

There may be more, but these are the ones that are important to me and at this point in time make it unlikely I would give these up for the more expensive Sony IV without these functions available.

A caveat here. I have not been able to study/read all reviews on the Sony and so I may have inadvertently missed something or things here, but it has not been intentional at all on my part.

Hope this is of some value to you as you work toward one or the other of these fine cameras. Oh, btw, my 2500 is sharp and the equal of my fz 1000 in the sharpness catagory.

Regards, Jim

Click to expand...

You forgot "Pre-Burst" but I the 2500 has more advantages even for stills than the RX10.

The only advantage the RX10 has is the 600mm @/f4 and now the 25fps w/ C-AF, (and 960fps video).

If Panasonic could get the sensor, (and Leica could make an equivalent lens), it could be much better than the RX10.

I doubt that Leica has much to do with the FZ lenses, apart from collecting a royalty on each one that Panasonic makes. Ditto Zeiss with the Sony RX lenses.

PhotoTeach2 said:
Heck maybe Panny could incorporate DFD technology with the PD-AF to be even faster.

I don't think that makes sense.

But DFD would work well with the Sony stacked sensor. Maybe now that the latest RX100 and RX10 models both use the fourth generation PDAF version, Sony will be more willing to sell the older third generation stacked version?

PhotoTeach2 · Sep 22, 2017

Digital Nigel said:
PhotoTeach2 said:

Digital Nigel said:

Jim N'AZ wrote:

PixelCowboy said:

XVOYAGERX said:

There are plenty of other forums here regarding this subject of the fz2500/2000 so-called image quality issues, so in the interests of me having to repeat myself over this issue again, and again, and again to NO AVAIL(most people are not listening) they have already convinced themselves that the lens is soft, (many without even trying the camera out) which in most cases,it is notdo a quick search and you will find the answersIN THE OTHER FORUMS` to your question, frankly this totally overhyped subject is fast becoming boring, so I personally am refraining from answering to anything more about this boring subject!!

Click to expand...

I'm going by Raw examples from multiple reviewers, that I have ingested to my computer, and evaluated. I know that a lot of people say that they have good copies of fz2500, but a lot of the examples that I've seen are soft, and have verified it from the raws. Maybe they are ok for most people, but I can see the quality downgrade from what I'm used to. Not so much with the fz1000, I find the quality pretty decent, but I'm not sure if I'm missing out from too many features from the excellent fz2500.

Click to expand...

I own both the 1k and the 2500 and this is my take regarding the Sony vs. The FZ 2500.

These are the functions I would have to give up by going from the 2500 over to the Sony: (I think) This list may not be exhaustive and is in no particular order of importance. And, yes, there are those functions that the Sony offers that the 1 year older 2500 does not offer, but I am responding to the OP from a 2500 owners perspective here.

I would lose the following fz2500 functions by going to the Sony.

Fully articulated LCD.

In camera focus stacking.

Neutral density filtering built-in.

Easy programmable individual Fn buttons w/o menu diving.

1/4000 sec. mech. shutter. (I do lots of flash work @ higher ss.

Internal zooming and focusing. (Important here in dusty Arizona!)

Switchable (mechanical switching) sloooow zoom speeds.

Wireless flash control via pop-up flash (in my case to my remote Metz 64af).

Built-in selectable diffraction compensation control.

AF sensitivity settings. (Perhaps Sony has this one under a different name)?

Side door card slot. This is even better than it sounds!

There may be more, but these are the ones that are important to me and at this point in time make it unlikely I would give these up for the more expensive Sony IV without these functions available.

A caveat here. I have not been able to study/read all reviews on the Sony and so I may have inadvertently missed something or things here, but it has not been intentional at all on my part.

Hope this is of some value to you as you work toward one or the other of these fine cameras. Oh, btw, my 2500 is sharp and the equal of my fz 1000 in the sharpness catagory.

Regards, Jim

Click to expand...

You forgot "Pre-Burst" but I the 2500 has more advantages even for stills than the RX10.

The only advantage the RX10 has is the 600mm @/f4 and now the 25fps w/ C-AF, (and 960fps video).

If Panasonic could get the sensor, (and Leica could make an equivalent lens), it could be much better than the RX10.

Click to expand...

I doubt that Leica has much to do with the FZ lenses, apart from collecting a royalty on each one that Panasonic makes. Ditto Zeiss with the Sony RX lenses.

I of course dont know the exact level/input Leica has on the FZ lenses, BUT it is known that the Panny lenses that indeed are "labeled-Leica" are sharper than those that arn't.

Example is the FZ-70 (80) which are not known for excellent lens quality as the FZ-200 & 1000 were.

Digital Nigel said:
Digital Nigel said:

Heck maybe Panny could incorporate DFD technology with the PD-AF to be even faster.

Click to expand...

I don't think that makes sense.

But DFD would work well with the Sony stacked sensor. Maybe now that the latest RX100 and RX10 models both use the fourth generation PDAF version, Sony will be more willing to sell the older third generation stacked version?

While I appreciate the current DFD-AF speed, I must assume true PD has the potential to be better.

I simply don't know if DFD, (or A9) technology could make it better.

Digital Nigel · Sep 22, 2017

PhotoTeach2 said:
Digital Nigel said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Jim N'AZ wrote:

PixelCowboy said:

XVOYAGERX said:

There are plenty of other forums here regarding this subject of the fz2500/2000 so-called image quality issues, so in the interests of me having to repeat myself over this issue again, and again, and again to NO AVAIL(most people are not listening) they have already convinced themselves that the lens is soft, (many without even trying the camera out) which in most cases,it is notdo a quick search and you will find the answersIN THE OTHER FORUMS` to your question, frankly this totally overhyped subject is fast becoming boring, so I personally am refraining from answering to anything more about this boring subject!!

Click to expand...

I'm going by Raw examples from multiple reviewers, that I have ingested to my computer, and evaluated. I know that a lot of people say that they have good copies of fz2500, but a lot of the examples that I've seen are soft, and have verified it from the raws. Maybe they are ok for most people, but I can see the quality downgrade from what I'm used to. Not so much with the fz1000, I find the quality pretty decent, but I'm not sure if I'm missing out from too many features from the excellent fz2500.

Click to expand...

I own both the 1k and the 2500 and this is my take regarding the Sony vs. The FZ 2500.

These are the functions I would have to give up by going from the 2500 over to the Sony: (I think) This list may not be exhaustive and is in no particular order of importance. And, yes, there are those functions that the Sony offers that the 1 year older 2500 does not offer, but I am responding to the OP from a 2500 owners perspective here.

I would lose the following fz2500 functions by going to the Sony.

Fully articulated LCD.

In camera focus stacking.

Neutral density filtering built-in.

Easy programmable individual Fn buttons w/o menu diving.

1/4000 sec. mech. shutter. (I do lots of flash work @ higher ss.

Internal zooming and focusing. (Important here in dusty Arizona!)

Switchable (mechanical switching) sloooow zoom speeds.

Wireless flash control via pop-up flash (in my case to my remote Metz 64af).

Built-in selectable diffraction compensation control.

AF sensitivity settings. (Perhaps Sony has this one under a different name)?

Side door card slot. This is even better than it sounds!

There may be more, but these are the ones that are important to me and at this point in time make it unlikely I would give these up for the more expensive Sony IV without these functions available.

A caveat here. I have not been able to study/read all reviews on the Sony and so I may have inadvertently missed something or things here, but it has not been intentional at all on my part.

Hope this is of some value to you as you work toward one or the other of these fine cameras. Oh, btw, my 2500 is sharp and the equal of my fz 1000 in the sharpness catagory.

Regards, Jim

Click to expand...

You forgot "Pre-Burst" but I the 2500 has more advantages even for stills than the RX10.

The only advantage the RX10 has is the 600mm @/f4 and now the 25fps w/ C-AF, (and 960fps video).

If Panasonic could get the sensor, (and Leica could make an equivalent lens), it could be much better than the RX10.

Click to expand...

I doubt that Leica has much to do with the FZ lenses, apart from collecting a royalty on each one that Panasonic makes. Ditto Zeiss with the Sony RX lenses.

Click to expand...

I of course dont know the exact level/input Leica has on the FZ lenses, BUT it is known that the Panny lenses that indeed are "labeled-Leica" are sharper than those that arn't.

Example is the FZ-70 (80) which are not known for excellent lens quality as the FZ-200 & 1000 were.

The TZ100 lens has the 'Leica' name on the front, but it's certainly not a Leica quality lens. Leica gets paid a royalty for the use of its brand name, but it obviously didn't make any contribution to the design.

PhotoTeach2 said:
PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Heck maybe Panny could incorporate DFD technology with the PD-AF to be even faster.

Click to expand...

I don't think that makes sense.

But DFD would work well with the Sony stacked sensor. Maybe now that the latest RX100 and RX10 models both use the fourth generation PDAF version, Sony will be more willing to sell the older third generation stacked version?

Click to expand...

While I appreciate the current DFD-AF speed, I must assume true PD has the potential to be better.

I simply don't know if DFD, (or A9) technology could make it better.

PDAF helps with detecting and tracking moving subjects. I have it on my a6000. However, it doesn't help with low light focus, where Panasonic's DFD works better. If used with the much faster stacked sensor, DFD would be even more impressive. Maybe that's why Sony didn't want to sell it to Panasonic before it had moved its cameras on to PDAF, which wins with action photography.

XVOYAGERX · Sep 22, 2017

AusPhotographer said:
XVOYAGERX said:

There are plenty of other forums here regarding this subject of the fz2500/2000 so-called image quality issues, so in the interests of me having to repeat myself over this issue again, and again, and again to `NO` AVAIL`(most people are not listening) they have already convinced themselves that the lens is soft, (many without even trying the camera out) which in most cases, `it is not` do a quick search and you will find the answers `IN THE OTHER FORUMS` to your question, frankly this totally overhyped subject is fast becoming boring, so I personally am refraining from answering to anything more about this boring subject!!

Click to expand...

They are soft compared to the RX10iii's IQ. It just can't be denied, no other professional and well published reviewer has denied it.

It doesn't make the FZ2500 a terrible camera (unless you're unlucky enough to get as bad a soft copy as I returned) but to deny it possesses a softer lens than its competition is doing a disservice to those actively seeking consumer advice.

evetsf · Sep 23, 2017

I tend to agree. There are frequent instances of blatant statements regarding the lens softness of the FZ2500, along the lines of "everyone knows" it has a soft lens.

Not necessarily. It may be, or might not be. Personal experience: my first FZ2500 had a soft lens - it was easy to see that the sharpness in the corners of the image was just not there. So, I exchanged it for another unit. Much better this time. Comparing it to my FZ1000, I could see no real difference between the two - at some focal lengths the 1000 was perhaps slightly better, at others the 2500 had the edge. But whatever the focal length, the difference was very slight and required serious pixel-peeping to see it.

So to categorically say that every FZ2500 lens is soft - or has lower IQ than the FZ1000 - is inaccurate.

Comparing it to other cameras is another story. I don't dispute that the RX10 III and IV have a superb lens. But the FZ2500 is certainly comparable to the FZ1000, and IMO that ain't all that far behind.

Steve

Michael Landers · Sep 24, 2017

Since the FZ2000/2500 came out i studied every single test that came out.

I think the same as some users here have expierienced:

Here in Europe it seems that the FZs has less to fight with this thing.

Yesterday i read the first test wich says the following:

"In the lab test, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2000 shows a tendency towards images that are re-sharpened by the image processor in all focal ranges."

The original test in German:

https://www.digitalkamera.de/Testbericht/Testbericht_Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FZ2000/10586.aspx?page=2

"Im Labortest zeigt die Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2000 in allen Brennweitenbereichen eine Tendenz zu vom Bildprozessor nachgeschärften Bildern."

If you see the charts, than its going to be clear, that a soft lens isn't a part of the FZ2000 / FZ2500.

--
Former SLR-User and now a happy FZ-User

XVOYAGERX · Sep 24, 2017

evetsf said:
I tend to agree. There are frequent instances of blatant statements regarding the lens softness of the FZ2500, along the lines of "everyone knows" it has a soft lens.

Not necessarily. It may be, or might not be. Personal experience: my first FZ2500 had a soft lens - it was easy to see that the sharpness in the corners of the image was just not there. So, I exchanged it for another unit. Much better this time. Comparing it to my FZ1000, I could see no real difference between the two - at some focal lengths the 1000 was perhaps slightly better, at others the 2500 had the edge. But whatever the focal length, the difference was very slight and required serious pixel-peeping to see it.

So to categorically say that every FZ2500 lens is soft - or has lower IQ than the FZ1000 - is inaccurate.

Comparing it to other cameras is another story. I don't dispute that the RX10 III and IV have a superb lens. But the FZ2500 is certainly comparable to the FZ1000, and IMO that ain't all that far behind.

Steve

I have posted here some pictures from my previous fz1000 and my now fz2000 (European model) Sooc, Both cameras are set on their default setting, there are obvious differences in year taken, time of year, sun position, f-stop, distance, etc, but in my opinion, I would say the pictures are pretty similar.

Allan.