And I never said I liked it for "image-IQ" purposes.
It is a marketing ploy to get uninformed people to buy the camera. It is also utterly useless given its image quality. Unless you want to spy on someone.
SOOC is only important to old school photographers who are afraid of post processing. Why would you allow your camera's algorithm to process the photo it thinks it is best. Why not do it yourself?
Your concept of SOOC is a very outdated notion that no modern photographer supports.
I have 55+yrs experience from 8mm to 4"x5", and taught/conducted photo-workshops, and have over $25,000 worth of gear. I would not say I an un-informed.
It is less quality than FF or 20mpx. But sufficient for 24"x36" posters.
Well ... THAT too ...
Because with its ("zebra") east of ETTR, (and HDR), I simply don't NEED to PP. All the photos I posted are SOOC.
I am sorry if you NEED to PP.
Evidently you are saying you can't.
How large would you print your image? 16Mp is good for many general use. Of course, if you cropped a lot (not have the right lens), you might face the limitation of the smaller resolution. For a M43 16Mp image (the sensor used by G85), it is 4592 x 3448. If you print it at 300dpi, you can have a print of 15.3" (38.8cm) x 11.49" (29.18cm).
Camera manufacturers try to put out cameras with features that they think that the public wants at a given price point. That is why there is always trade offs.
I'd also worry about the lens (selection, cost) which could be more important
Hi Albert, of course 16MP might be decent now, but 4 to 5 years from now, it would be pretty outdated. Moreover, if we need to crop, not always but sometimes, I feel it's better with 24MP. I haven't tried any 16MP camera yet.
Thanks for the good info.
Hi beagle1, you are right. Most stores here, both offline and online, have Canon and Nikon lenses. Sony E mounts are now slowly coming up in stores, but still not there yet.
Those would worry me too.
I don't think so.
Please explain how that could possibly be true technically. Really, I'd LOVE to hear it. Seems pretty impossible to me. How is it different in camera besides exposure, wb and focus? I don't care if it's SOOC. How is it different and how does that mean you "shot at 3200mm" when really you just in camera cropped from 400 equivalent? Details and technical reasons please. No new photos needed.
Okay, cause we all get sharp shot when digitally zoomed 3200mm. Oh wait, we cant.
EXACTLY. I can't believe how bad many of them look. I actually had to google and hunt down some other examples. The FZ is far from the cleanest IQ, but he keeps making it 100x worse with digital zooming. It's not as bad as it looks, but its no where near m43 or apsc either.
Anyone who thinks you can get good quality photo using the digital zoom is uniformed, because you cannot
I was talking about the images from the digital zoom, not from the normal zoom
So you shoot Jpegs, not raw. Another mistake.Well ... THAT too ...
Because with its ("zebra") east of ETTR, (and HDR), I simply don't NEED to PP. All the photos I posted are SOOC.
Youshould. Image quality wise there are photos from the fz1000 that are way better than the photos you have posted.
Sorry, I meant to say you cannot PP a photo.
In the digital age SOOC is foolish. Even with film people would alter photos in the darkroom to make the photos more artistic. Can you sooc local adjustments. Can you sooc dodging and burning. Can you sooc on increase in exposure in one part of the image while simultaneously darkening another (I am not talking about dodging and burning). Can you sooc warm tones in one part of the image while simultaneously applying cool tones to another?
I switched from apsc to m4/3 a few years ago, and they haven't bothered me at all.
I'd like to second this and really highlight how useful a built-in ND filter can be. My FDR-AX100 camcorder has it and its indispensable for shooting video on bright days. The ND lets me keep the iris open, keep the shutter speeds down and keep the level of light within the dynamic range of my camcorder's sensor.
I agree - built in ND filter is awesome, too bad the FZ1000 doesn't have one.
You've done it now.
Prepare to for about 1000 junk yard photos (and one flower) showing how leaf shutters are a million times better and that HSS and FP shutters are worthless. Of course, those of us who use HSS as intended know that HSS seems to work fine for us, but that won't stop the onslaught you've summoned.Didn't know the 1000 lacked it; the 2500 does have it though. I just had to highlight that a built-in ND is awesome. My favorite feature of my AX100 is the built-in ND filter set.
Lol. I don't see any significant benefit of a leaf shutter for stills. I've shot the FZ1000, its a fine camera, but I didn't notice its was any better at fill flash than my Canon DSLRs with HSS fill flash.You've done it now.
I have NEVER stated you can get "quality" digital-zoom images. And I have agreed that the 3200mm-EFL is only 3.12Kpx of actual data, (albeit in-camera interpolated back up to 5mpx).
With only one exception, (Capitol/Moon), image, I have never sold a digital-zoomed image.
I often shoot Jpeg+RAW, so I have both.So you shoot Jpegs, not raw. Another mistake.Well ... THAT too ...
Because with its ("zebra") east of ETTR, (and HDR), I simply don't NEED to PP. All the photos I posted are SOOC.
I am NOT saying PP has no (sometimes essential) value ...
I answered below that I have NEVER suggested the 3200mm-EFL is a good/sellable image. They are BAD, (very TERRIBLE in fact). They are only 3.12Kpx (not Mpx) of actual data.
