Stevie Boy Blue
Senior Member
As Panasonic still manufactures the FZ2000, a 1-inch sensor bridge camera released back in 2016, I’ve produced this follow-up to my initial review of a model I rate as second to no other in its class for the price we pay, (including the FZ1000, FZ1000 2 and Sony RX10 mk4. I’ve tried them all).
Part one can be found via this link: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4513863 and may be useful to anyone keen on a more compressive write-up re specs, handling and that supposed soft lens issue, which, as far as I’m concerned, possibly never existed at all. So as I can use this as a future point of reference for whenever the subject arises again, I’ll elaborate on/clarify my suspicions here.
I speak as I find, and the lens on my two FZ2000s (as well as 4 other copies of the camera I’ve set up for friends and acquaintances since 2019), is actually tack sharp throughout its whole 24 – 480mm (EFL) range. Whilst I acknowledge that some copy/lens variation may occasionally exist re any model, I believe USER ERROR’s the main reason that complaints arise with products like bridge cameras, especially the more technical varieties that require a modicum of both thought and skill to operate – at least beyond the so-called Intelligent Auto modes.
In three years of using the FZ2000, I’ve never witnessed soft results that I couldn’t put down to either my own fault or the occasional miss focus. Primarily, I use single autofocus (AF-S) for stills because it’s more reliable than AF-C (continuous) for my own ends. Whilst no AF system is 100% reliable even for stationary subjects, in my experience the FZ2000 quickly and accurately locks on an impressive 95% of the time. And I use it often for wildlife, portraits, still life and landscapes – through pretty much everything a bridge camera’s designed to capture on photo or video.
And make no mistake, as far as these all-in-one’s go, the FZ2000’s a true jack of all trades and master of the lot... at least within the confines and limitations of its 1-inch sensor.
Whilst recently tracing things back to where this fabled lens issue was first mentioned (apparently in DPR’s original review), I came across an archived thread opened in 2017 by a DPR member called Marshwader and who is definitely my kind of contributor. Like me, he calls a spade a spade; right from the start, Marshwader questions the merit of DPR’s image testing procedure used when reviewing the FZ2000. (I’ve also openly questioned this myself over the years.)
As I’ve said a few times on this forum, DPR’s testing procedure is not infallible (in my view it often looks suspect, especially re the discrepancy in shutter speeds reviewers/handlers select between the offerings of cameras from different manufacturers relevant to aperture settings both in studio and outdoors/under identical situations/available light). Hence I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with most of Marshwader’s views in his thread, and I absolutely second the suggestion he makes on page 2, that:
“The FZ2000 had to be talked down. A reasonably priced alternative with phenomenal video features, a mini GH4. Mine functions incredibly well in that capacity and while I am out with it, it also takes nice sharp still images. What more could you ask for. It just had to look flawed...” (I suspect Marshwader was referring/comparing the FZ2000 to the RX10 mk3. That was Sony’s alternative offering at the time and DPR appeared to rate it more highly than the FZ back in the day.)
Truth is, I’ve seen far less logical conspiracy theories than Marshwader’s started and bandied around on forums like this, such as implausible suggestions that Panasonic’s Quality control and camera/ lens copy variation is supposedly worse than we see from other makers. In my experience, this is utter hogwash. (I’ve owned and used many Panasonic cameras since 2004 and all, barring the generally poor FZ80, have been largely very good to absolutely superb.)
As I said above, USER ERROR is likely the reason that photos appear soft when copies of the same model are used by photographers with the least shooting experience and/or are unfamiliar with how to gain the best from certain cameras. This includes user-failure to recognise that factory-set in-camera default Jpeg settings may be making end-results appear soft rather than the lens itself.
In my experience, Panasonic Jpegs have needed user tweaking since CMOS sensors replaced CCD varieties, no less so than in the FZ2000 (and smaller FZ300). But not everyone, including many camera reviewers, appreciates or apparently knows this. If there was a genuine problem with the FZ2000’s lens, then we could reasonably expect it to show up more often and in more units than has applied since the camera’s 2016 release. If you doubt the degree to which default Jpegs can look soft, and how they could be mistaken for lens issues if left as Panasonic set them, TRY OUT THE SETTINGS I USE/mention BELOW.
Anyway, for those keen on reading Marshwader’s interesting thread, here’s a direct link to it: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4105972
ALTERNATIVES?
Moving on: Since buying my two FZ2000s in 2019, I now own two M4/3 cameras (the G90 and G100.) In my experience, under good to reasonable light levels and up to IS0 1600, it’s very difficult to notice any jump in overall image quality between the FZ2000’s 1” sensor and M4/3 beyond highly magnified examination and absolute nitpicking levels of scrutiny of full 20mp files from both. (Note that I shoot only highest quality Jpegs, never RAW. So I cannot speak for any comparison of uncompressed files.)
Just one negligible advantage that M4/3rd has over the 1” sensor in relation to Jpegs I feel worth mentioning is that the larger chip affords slightly more crop-ability before fine details of subjects like small birds become noticeably affected. (To my own satisfaction, 4/3rd allows cropping to around ¼ of the full sensor surface area, say, down to 5mp from 20mp, with the FZ2000’s 1” sensor restricted to 1/3rd [around 6.5mp from 20mp], but which I still regard as impressive for the difference in overall dimensions between the two sensors).
Obviously, as light levels fade and we require ISO settings above 1600, M4/3rd pulls away. But potential buyers of the FZ2000 should note that 24mm wide angle shooting is available at F2.8. Even at maximum 480mm, a relatively bright F4.5 still remains an option. Hence it’s a matter of weighing up how often you’d need to increase ISO settings to or above ISO 1600 in the bridge camera compared to the ILC. Not forgetting, of course, that the least expensive M4/3 lenses affording the comparative long-end reach to the FZ2000 have maximum apertures of F5.6 and F3.5 to F4 at the wider end, at least one stop slower than the bridge. Perhaps moreover, a budget zoom lens plus the separate M4/3 camera body will be more expensive overall to buy; especially considering two lenses will be required to cover the whole of the FZ’s 24 to 480mm range. Total cost? Anywhere from around £1400 to over £2000 for a M4/3 kit, or around £750 for an FZ2000, which is one reason I regard this bridge camera as a real bargain and a very capable all-in-one alternative even to the most modern M4/3 ILC offerings.
OTHER 1-inch sensor Bridge OPTIONS?
Even in its own 1-inch sensor category, the FZ2000 offers fantastic value for money compared to either Sony’s current RX10 mk 4, or even Panasonic’s own and newer FZ1000 2.
Yes, the RX10 4 has 120mm more optical zoom than the FZ2000, weather sealing and phase detection autofocus, but it has no built-in ND filters, zooms out comparatively slowly, and costs over twice the price of the FZ. Some say that both the RX’s lens and overall image quality are sharper than any FZ alternative, but not to my eyes. For me, only the colour science between both manufacturers/cameras is noticeably different. As to which one is better, well that’s entirely subject to personal taste. With a quick and permanent tweak made to AWB (see below), I prefer Panasonic colours myself. And no way would I ever consider shelling out close to £1600 for the Sony. Of course, YMMV and that’s fine with me. It is, after all, your money and your choice! ;-)
As for the FZ1000 2, Jpeg still image quality is on par with but certainly no better than we see from the FZ2000 (same for the older and original FZ1000.) In my experience, there’s nothing at all to choose between these cameras on that score.
However, opt for the FZ1000 2 and you lose pretty much everything that makes the FZ2000 the more useful hybrid video and stills camera: Gone are the headphone jack, MOV wrapper for video files, the higher bit depth 1080p files, the built-in ND filters (which also enable more creative stills shooting with the FZ2000), the zoom on rails, the 1080p dolly zoom, save to mention the extra 80mm of reach that the FZ2000 has over the FZ1000 2 at the long end of the lens (480mm EFL as opposed to 400mm). Overall, despite the fact that FZ1000 2 compressed consumer 4K video files can look good; they’re no match for the equivalent UHD output of the FZ2000, which is generally excellent and highly regarded by many users and reviewers alike.
Arguably, the only advantage to buying the FZ1000 2 is if you need a slightly smaller and lighter camera, you regard video and overall creative specifications as less important, and because you maybe assume that the slightly newer tech and colour science associated with a model released in 2019 as opposed to 2016 in some way makes the FZ1000 2 a better camera. In reality, that is NOT the case in my experience.
As I write, the FZ2000 retails on average just £20 more than you’d pay for the FZ1000 2. To me, that makes the FZ2000 a no brainer purchase over ALL sibling alternatives when both video and stills quality are high on any buyer’s list. Although I rate the FZ1000 2 highly, for me the FZ2000’s zoom on rails, built-in ND filters and extra 80mm of reach alone are worth way over that extra £20 we pay for arguably the best 1” sensor bridge camera that Panasonic’s made to date. It remains the flagship of the whole range for a very good reason.
CONCLUSION
For all that it offers, in my opinion and experience, the FZ2000 is easily the most bang-for-the-buck 1-inch sensor bridge camera available today. In this regard, my views of the model haven’t changed since I bought my first of two copies back in 2019. All in all, the FZ2000 remains as good today as it’s ever been. Moreover, the fact it’s been leaving Panasonic’s production line in batches since 2016 is testament to how highly it’s regarded in the current market, and just how far advanced the technology used within the model was at the time of its release.
Suffice it to say, I highly recommend the FZ2000 to anyone serious about stills and video capabilities and who wants the lot all wrapped up in a high performance package. In reality, when tweaked to extract the best from it, this camera is absolutely fantastic – period!
Below are some of my FZ2000 still image examples shot from wide angle to full telephoto. Note that all have been resized and/or cropped for quick uploading and viewing purposes. Otherwise no PP has been applied to the Jpegs as they appeared straight out of the camera. For the pixel peepers, I’ve included two 100% crops and labelled them appropriately. Although I cannot display motion pictures here, take my word for it that both 1080p and 4K video output is excellent. For those who might also find them helpful, I’ve included instructive illustrations re most of my preferred settings for shooting stills with the camera.
Please note that I’ve now said pretty much all I can or care to in relation to the FZ2000 (certainly re the lens and which I’ll reiterate for one final time is sharp as a tack.) Hence, any further posts from me below are likely to be very few and far between. I freely construct my reviews/forum posts primarily to help people gain the best from their gear and/or to encourage readers to check out models I rate highly enough to write about. So, whilst hoping that my aims are achieved at least to some degree, I thank you all in advance for reading my contributions.
Happy shooting and all the best, everyone.
Click all images to open at original posted size or via the link to my DPR Photo Gallery.
All images except for 100% crops have been reduced in resolution for quick upload and display.
See the next two images for examples of AF Macro.
100% crop from the following image at its original full resolution.
100% crop from the following image at its original full resolution.
CAMERA SETTINGS
Click to open and read.
Click to open and read.
Click to open and read.
Click to open and read.
PS: For those interested, my previous reviews of other Panasonic products can be read here:
FZ300 part one: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63244070
FZ300 part two: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65012028
FZ2000 part one: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64288303
G100: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65550733
14 – 140mm mk 2 lens for M4/3rd: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65695092
Cheers...
Part one can be found via this link: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4513863 and may be useful to anyone keen on a more compressive write-up re specs, handling and that supposed soft lens issue, which, as far as I’m concerned, possibly never existed at all. So as I can use this as a future point of reference for whenever the subject arises again, I’ll elaborate on/clarify my suspicions here.
I speak as I find, and the lens on my two FZ2000s (as well as 4 other copies of the camera I’ve set up for friends and acquaintances since 2019), is actually tack sharp throughout its whole 24 – 480mm (EFL) range. Whilst I acknowledge that some copy/lens variation may occasionally exist re any model, I believe USER ERROR’s the main reason that complaints arise with products like bridge cameras, especially the more technical varieties that require a modicum of both thought and skill to operate – at least beyond the so-called Intelligent Auto modes.
In three years of using the FZ2000, I’ve never witnessed soft results that I couldn’t put down to either my own fault or the occasional miss focus. Primarily, I use single autofocus (AF-S) for stills because it’s more reliable than AF-C (continuous) for my own ends. Whilst no AF system is 100% reliable even for stationary subjects, in my experience the FZ2000 quickly and accurately locks on an impressive 95% of the time. And I use it often for wildlife, portraits, still life and landscapes – through pretty much everything a bridge camera’s designed to capture on photo or video.
And make no mistake, as far as these all-in-one’s go, the FZ2000’s a true jack of all trades and master of the lot... at least within the confines and limitations of its 1-inch sensor.Whilst recently tracing things back to where this fabled lens issue was first mentioned (apparently in DPR’s original review), I came across an archived thread opened in 2017 by a DPR member called Marshwader and who is definitely my kind of contributor. Like me, he calls a spade a spade; right from the start, Marshwader questions the merit of DPR’s image testing procedure used when reviewing the FZ2000. (I’ve also openly questioned this myself over the years.)
As I’ve said a few times on this forum, DPR’s testing procedure is not infallible (in my view it often looks suspect, especially re the discrepancy in shutter speeds reviewers/handlers select between the offerings of cameras from different manufacturers relevant to aperture settings both in studio and outdoors/under identical situations/available light). Hence I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with most of Marshwader’s views in his thread, and I absolutely second the suggestion he makes on page 2, that:
“The FZ2000 had to be talked down. A reasonably priced alternative with phenomenal video features, a mini GH4. Mine functions incredibly well in that capacity and while I am out with it, it also takes nice sharp still images. What more could you ask for. It just had to look flawed...” (I suspect Marshwader was referring/comparing the FZ2000 to the RX10 mk3. That was Sony’s alternative offering at the time and DPR appeared to rate it more highly than the FZ back in the day.)
Truth is, I’ve seen far less logical conspiracy theories than Marshwader’s started and bandied around on forums like this, such as implausible suggestions that Panasonic’s Quality control and camera/ lens copy variation is supposedly worse than we see from other makers. In my experience, this is utter hogwash. (I’ve owned and used many Panasonic cameras since 2004 and all, barring the generally poor FZ80, have been largely very good to absolutely superb.)
As I said above, USER ERROR is likely the reason that photos appear soft when copies of the same model are used by photographers with the least shooting experience and/or are unfamiliar with how to gain the best from certain cameras. This includes user-failure to recognise that factory-set in-camera default Jpeg settings may be making end-results appear soft rather than the lens itself.
In my experience, Panasonic Jpegs have needed user tweaking since CMOS sensors replaced CCD varieties, no less so than in the FZ2000 (and smaller FZ300). But not everyone, including many camera reviewers, appreciates or apparently knows this. If there was a genuine problem with the FZ2000’s lens, then we could reasonably expect it to show up more often and in more units than has applied since the camera’s 2016 release. If you doubt the degree to which default Jpegs can look soft, and how they could be mistaken for lens issues if left as Panasonic set them, TRY OUT THE SETTINGS I USE/mention BELOW.
Anyway, for those keen on reading Marshwader’s interesting thread, here’s a direct link to it: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4105972
ALTERNATIVES?
Moving on: Since buying my two FZ2000s in 2019, I now own two M4/3 cameras (the G90 and G100.) In my experience, under good to reasonable light levels and up to IS0 1600, it’s very difficult to notice any jump in overall image quality between the FZ2000’s 1” sensor and M4/3 beyond highly magnified examination and absolute nitpicking levels of scrutiny of full 20mp files from both. (Note that I shoot only highest quality Jpegs, never RAW. So I cannot speak for any comparison of uncompressed files.)
Just one negligible advantage that M4/3rd has over the 1” sensor in relation to Jpegs I feel worth mentioning is that the larger chip affords slightly more crop-ability before fine details of subjects like small birds become noticeably affected. (To my own satisfaction, 4/3rd allows cropping to around ¼ of the full sensor surface area, say, down to 5mp from 20mp, with the FZ2000’s 1” sensor restricted to 1/3rd [around 6.5mp from 20mp], but which I still regard as impressive for the difference in overall dimensions between the two sensors).
Obviously, as light levels fade and we require ISO settings above 1600, M4/3rd pulls away. But potential buyers of the FZ2000 should note that 24mm wide angle shooting is available at F2.8. Even at maximum 480mm, a relatively bright F4.5 still remains an option. Hence it’s a matter of weighing up how often you’d need to increase ISO settings to or above ISO 1600 in the bridge camera compared to the ILC. Not forgetting, of course, that the least expensive M4/3 lenses affording the comparative long-end reach to the FZ2000 have maximum apertures of F5.6 and F3.5 to F4 at the wider end, at least one stop slower than the bridge. Perhaps moreover, a budget zoom lens plus the separate M4/3 camera body will be more expensive overall to buy; especially considering two lenses will be required to cover the whole of the FZ’s 24 to 480mm range. Total cost? Anywhere from around £1400 to over £2000 for a M4/3 kit, or around £750 for an FZ2000, which is one reason I regard this bridge camera as a real bargain and a very capable all-in-one alternative even to the most modern M4/3 ILC offerings.
OTHER 1-inch sensor Bridge OPTIONS?
Even in its own 1-inch sensor category, the FZ2000 offers fantastic value for money compared to either Sony’s current RX10 mk 4, or even Panasonic’s own and newer FZ1000 2.
Yes, the RX10 4 has 120mm more optical zoom than the FZ2000, weather sealing and phase detection autofocus, but it has no built-in ND filters, zooms out comparatively slowly, and costs over twice the price of the FZ. Some say that both the RX’s lens and overall image quality are sharper than any FZ alternative, but not to my eyes. For me, only the colour science between both manufacturers/cameras is noticeably different. As to which one is better, well that’s entirely subject to personal taste. With a quick and permanent tweak made to AWB (see below), I prefer Panasonic colours myself. And no way would I ever consider shelling out close to £1600 for the Sony. Of course, YMMV and that’s fine with me.
It is, after all, your money and your choice! ;-)As for the FZ1000 2, Jpeg still image quality is on par with but certainly no better than we see from the FZ2000 (same for the older and original FZ1000.) In my experience, there’s nothing at all to choose between these cameras on that score.
However, opt for the FZ1000 2 and you lose pretty much everything that makes the FZ2000 the more useful hybrid video and stills camera: Gone are the headphone jack, MOV wrapper for video files, the higher bit depth 1080p files, the built-in ND filters (which also enable more creative stills shooting with the FZ2000), the zoom on rails, the 1080p dolly zoom, save to mention the extra 80mm of reach that the FZ2000 has over the FZ1000 2 at the long end of the lens (480mm EFL as opposed to 400mm). Overall, despite the fact that FZ1000 2 compressed consumer 4K video files can look good; they’re no match for the equivalent UHD output of the FZ2000, which is generally excellent and highly regarded by many users and reviewers alike.
Arguably, the only advantage to buying the FZ1000 2 is if you need a slightly smaller and lighter camera, you regard video and overall creative specifications as less important, and because you maybe assume that the slightly newer tech and colour science associated with a model released in 2019 as opposed to 2016 in some way makes the FZ1000 2 a better camera. In reality, that is NOT the case in my experience.
As I write, the FZ2000 retails on average just £20 more than you’d pay for the FZ1000 2. To me, that makes the FZ2000 a no brainer purchase over ALL sibling alternatives when both video and stills quality are high on any buyer’s list. Although I rate the FZ1000 2 highly, for me the FZ2000’s zoom on rails, built-in ND filters and extra 80mm of reach alone are worth way over that extra £20 we pay for arguably the best 1” sensor bridge camera that Panasonic’s made to date. It remains the flagship of the whole range for a very good reason.
CONCLUSION
For all that it offers, in my opinion and experience, the FZ2000 is easily the most bang-for-the-buck 1-inch sensor bridge camera available today. In this regard, my views of the model haven’t changed since I bought my first of two copies back in 2019. All in all, the FZ2000 remains as good today as it’s ever been. Moreover, the fact it’s been leaving Panasonic’s production line in batches since 2016 is testament to how highly it’s regarded in the current market, and just how far advanced the technology used within the model was at the time of its release.
Suffice it to say, I highly recommend the FZ2000 to anyone serious about stills and video capabilities and who wants the lot all wrapped up in a high performance package. In reality, when tweaked to extract the best from it, this camera is absolutely fantastic – period!
Below are some of my FZ2000 still image examples shot from wide angle to full telephoto. Note that all have been resized and/or cropped for quick uploading and viewing purposes. Otherwise no PP has been applied to the Jpegs as they appeared straight out of the camera. For the pixel peepers, I’ve included two 100% crops and labelled them appropriately. Although I cannot display motion pictures here, take my word for it that both 1080p and 4K video output is excellent. For those who might also find them helpful, I’ve included instructive illustrations re most of my preferred settings for shooting stills with the camera.
Please note that I’ve now said pretty much all I can or care to in relation to the FZ2000 (certainly re the lens and which I’ll reiterate for one final time is sharp as a tack.) Hence, any further posts from me below are likely to be very few and far between. I freely construct my reviews/forum posts primarily to help people gain the best from their gear and/or to encourage readers to check out models I rate highly enough to write about. So, whilst hoping that my aims are achieved at least to some degree, I thank you all in advance for reading my contributions.
Happy shooting and all the best, everyone.
Click all images to open at original posted size or via the link to my DPR Photo Gallery.
All images except for 100% crops have been reduced in resolution for quick upload and display.
See the next two images for examples of AF Macro.
100% crop from the following image at its original full resolution.
100% crop from the following image at its original full resolution.
CAMERA SETTINGS
Click to open and read.
Click to open and read.
Click to open and read.
Click to open and read.
PS: For those interested, my previous reviews of other Panasonic products can be read here:
FZ300 part one: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63244070
FZ300 part two: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65012028
FZ2000 part one: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64288303
G100: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65550733
14 – 140mm mk 2 lens for M4/3rd: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65695092
Cheers...
Attachments
Last edited:
