*To Jimmy Cricket, Mikedigi, Holmes375, jrtrent, etc*

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Flat view
Stevie Boy Blue Senior Member • Posts: 1,502
*To Jimmy Cricket, Mikedigi, Holmes375, jrtrent, etc*

Collectively, I’d like to thank all of you for the positive comments you made in my direction on the thread here and which unfortunately reached its posting limit before I could respond:


The same applies to anyone else who appreciates my efforts here on the DPR forums. Thank you to all – especially those who generate positive feedback here and there. You’re very kind and I value the time you invest whilst responding to me.

Jimmy The Cricket

Thank you again for posting such very kind words in relation to my postings and for the PM you sent requesting my advice on woodpecker photography. As I mentioned via brief reply, I was almost certain I’d compiled an article on that very subject a few years ago, and which I’ve now found and linked here:


I will also add a post for your attention there to move the thread back up the forum listings, so that others may benefit from my tactics, too. I’ll attempt to address various other things mentioned in your PM over the next few days to a week if you don’t mind. Hope the ‘pecker’ thread resurrection will suffice until then.

Thanks again


Thanks again for opening the thread discussing my FZ330 Review. I know some of the posts got sidetracked and that you raised a question re the FZ2000 towards the backend of the thread.

I picked up your latest PM that you’re now happy with your FZ330. But in reply to your thread post, I’d have to say I do not believe, as was suggested, that all DPR reviewing staff are expert photographers. Some of ‘em may well be. But I seriously doubt that they all are. Some will be there for purely journalistic reasons.

Even amongst those who do harbour photographic expertise, there will be those whose experience lays firmly in the field of DSLR work, many of whom will have far less of an idea of shooting with bridge cameras and the differences in DOF between smaller and larger sensors and the effects of specific focal ranges/lenses put in front of them.

I mention this because it’s common for primarily DSLR shooters who move to bridge cameras to close down apertures as a means to increase DOF when it’s not remotely necessary. Many are the times I’ve seen folks take wide angle landscapes with small sensor FZs set to F8, simply because they’ve migrated from a DSLR and fail to acknowledge or understand that there’s no need to close down apertures for wide shots taken with Bridge cameras as they’d need to with ILC’s. Some will even do the same at full zoom, too, which again is not ideal.

Another point to note is that many Zoom lenses designed purely for DSLR and other ILC’s actually need calibrating to the specific camera to which they are attached. If not, tests results of non-calibrated lenses can give inaccurate representations of results, and can render, say a Panasonic 300mm lens soft when wide open on one camera but not on another of the same model. Surely, any reviewer with ‘enough experience’ in digital photography would know that. But clearly some DPR reviewers appear not to, indicating obvious lack of knowledge.

Re the official FZ2000 review on this site, I just wish at least one person from the bunch of folks involved with shooting and writing about the camera had bothered to tweak in-camera Jpeg defaults as a means of bringing out some better results, certainly with the first unit. As it is, we see from the sample gallery that four or five different folks shot with the sample camera, two of whom wrote up the review.

A quick look at the shutter speeds and areas of focus obtained in some of the shots made by some shooters compared to others speaks volumes re the question of experience, in my opinion. And just look at how young some of those involved with the shooting actually are! Just how experienced can they be in all aspects of photography when they look 30 years old at the most?

Nah. I suspect many are employed more for their journalistic skills and the way they come across in video communication than because they know how to bring out the best from every camera under review. Just my opinion, of course. I’d be more than happy to be corrected by DPR’s CEO or at least the person in charge of staff hiring.

That said, of course, I acknowledge some sample variation between cameras and lenses must exist. I just do not accept it is as common or extensive as the user error for which it may so often be mistaken. Bad photographers will often blame their gear as often as the shady tradesman blames his tools. Neither really knows how to bring out the best in them. And I assure you that the best in the FZ2000 is there to be extracted in pretty much the same way as with the FZ330. If only we had fully competent folks doing these professional reviews, we might receive far more accurate conclusions than we do now.

Re the DPR FZ2500 review, I simply cannot resist ending with this quote re image quality from the ‘final word’:

“The dark horse in the race may be Panasonic’s own FZ1000. Its lens is faster and sharper than theFZ2500. Image quality is nearly identical and the feature set is very similar, at least for stills.”

So, if the FZ2000’s lens was soft, how can the last sentence be even remotely accurate? Unless, of course, review samples of both the FZ2500 and FZ1000 had soft lenses that made ‘image equality nearly identical’.

Oh, and as to whether this review influenced Panasonic to reduce the price of the FZ2000, I do not believe so. The discounts only occurred relatively recently and I’m assured by a number of Panasonic camera vendors that the FZ2000 has always been a top seller in the range – even when it cost the full RRP of £1199. Now, of course, at discount it’s arguably a far better buy than the FZ1000 or the FZ1000 2 purely because of the longer reach and those built-in ND filters, save to mention the 2000’s super video capabilities. And to reiterate, it takes equally great sills as either of its 1’’ sensor siblings and it has a superb and very sharp lens, too. To date, though, I've only tried out a total of three different FZ2000 cameras, so I may be wrong. Not!

Trust me, if ever you’re tempted to get one, buy it with confidence and ignore the doom-peddlers and everyone else who blames their tools for shoddy workmanship or output. It’s a terrific camera, with the only drawback being its additional weight over the FZ330.

Happy shooting and thanks again…


I appreciate your feedback. Good of you post and even more interesting to note you’ve ended up with virtually the same settings in terms of AWB for specific picture output on the FZ330.

Don’t mean to appear presumptuous, but did you spot my post back in 2015, or did you arrive at the same conclusions by your own trial and error? Either way, it’s good that we’re on the same page here.

Always nice to hear from you. Thanks again for the input.



Indeed, I’ve always preferred to encourage users of the FZ330 to find their own settings for OOC Jpegs because we each have our own ideas of what looks right in our eyes.

Although this may look like I’m blowing my own trumpet, I assure you I’m not. I’m more inclined to self deprecate than brag about anything that I do. But I receive many compliments towards my photographs, on the back of which quite a few who make them ask what camera settings I use.

I wish I received an English pound coin every time somebody asked me for Jpeg settings, but perhaps what they don’t realise is that in terms of the images I post, the quality comes more from the fact I’ve filled most of the frame with the subject, and to such an extent that even default settings would show almost the same level of detail. Yes, I tweak to find my own personal optimum and preference for colour and saturation, sharpening, etc, simply because I want ‘MY Best’ to pop straight out of the camera. Regardless of what we like though, there’s no substitute for filling the frame with the subject recorded via a pinhead sensor.

Back in 2015, when I was initially experimenting with my first FZ330, I was more liberal in terms of revealing trial settings such as those I resurrected and shared on Mike’s recent thread relating to my review. Thing is, since then, I’ve had a few folks message me saying they’ve tried my setting but didn’t like them. It’s good that many more have been of a positive ilk, but because it’s clear that we’re not all of the same mind or like what we see to equal degree, I much prefer it when folks buy their cameras and do as I do – experiment from scratch until they find their happy medium and no matter for how long it takes them to do that.

As I imply above. Those who consistently fill the frame with their subjects will always see the most detail in their images. In this sense, the camera is always secondary to a shot well prepared. The image is taken with a simple click of a shutter on a recording device. The most difficult aspect of what goes into creating the better photos comes way before that click.

Truth be told, some of us possess the experience, the patience and the drive that ensures we always get within range of, say any skittish wildlife subject that interests us enough to photograph it. Although I again run the risk of being accused of boasting, not everyone can apply the levels of dedication required for the job. It is perhaps they who are most inclined to buy remote controls or wildlife cameras they can leave running for 24 hrs out in the field whilst they remain at home.

Others may simply invest in Nikon P950s or the even longer P1000. Such shortcuts to success are always an option, of course. I’m not criticising either. But for the likes of me, there’s nothing more satisfying than meeting the challenge of the close-up opportunity afforded by trial and error of the long game, the objective of which is purely to get as up close and personal to a subject that has no clue I am even there.

Some say my photos on DPR look good and that’s always nice to hear; despite the fact that my best efforts will always be reserved for my eyes only, never to be posted anywhere online (again, not a boast, just the truth). Ultimately, it all boils down to A) being so familiar with a camera that it feels like it’s a part of us and B) absolute dedication to getting close enough to fill that frame.

For me, each of my photos represents many hours spent over many years learning the behavioural patterns of many of my subjects. I’d like to believe that many viewers can see and appreciate that when looking at my shots, but it is obvious that some cannot. These folks look at the examples included in, say, my FZ330 review and think my Jpeg settings are the key to why they look so detailed. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

Yes, a few changes to default parameters may help to some degree, but the real work is far, far, more difficult and time-consuming than chosen Jpeg settings. No doubt you’ll already realise that, jr, but there will be many who remain oblivious to the reality of what actually sets good photographs apart from not so good ones. Bottom line, it’s never solely the camera; it’s always more the person who trips that shutter release and all the experience they’ve amassed before doing so.

Snap shooting is and always will be easy because it’s done in an instant. Dedication to the real art of photography, however, is considerably more difficult. All depends on how far we wish to take things and the levels of enjoyment we obtain through participation at any level.

Have fun and thanks again.

And thanks again all...

Cheers everyone

Nikon Coolpix P1000 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic FZ2500
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow