Upgrading from TZ60/ZS40 to FZ80/82 for birding?

travelfoodphoto said:

... It's the photographer, not the camera.

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

travelfoodphoto said:

Last comment for you from me. You're making this so much more difficult than it needs to be. Just buy an FZ300 and learn how to use it and learn how to compose good photos with it. Look at my challenge entries, for examples. I've used this camera and cheaper cameras to come in the top 10 - 20 percent on DPReview challenges against photos taken with $1000's of photo equipment.

The FZ300 is far more than adequate for your photography needs. If and when you outgrow it, you can buy a far more expensive camera, if you choose.

It's the photographer, not the camera.

Good luck,

Den

Click to expand...

But if you needed more than 600mm and specifically more than 1000mm (and wanted to do BIF with this camera) which camera would you get? ...

Click to expand...

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon you are right I do spray and pray but more recently, I have just been using single shot mode because the buffer slows everything down after 10 images. So the BIF were more the result of lucky imaging not spray and pray. I reduced them to 2400x1800, no auto processing used except for the cardinal that was flying away.

I think your images are great, but they are from a closer distance, I think? Mine are from 100 feet away or more. ...

Click to expand...

No that much difference approximately 90 ft. Hence has little to do with differences in IQ. Has more to do with technique and PP.

Jon_T said:

The image with the single gull in flight is at 1200mm (no IDZ), the one with the two gulls is at 2400 (2x IDZ) the one with the perched cardinal is at 2400mm (2x IDZ) and the one with the flying cardinal is at 1200mm (no IDZ) but auto processing used...

Click to expand...

The "Auto processing" did not appear help, images look washed out and OOF.

I did some "really quick" tweaks to couple of the images.

Jon_T said:

Click to expand...

Jon_T said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

travelfoodphoto said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Owlsfan said:

travelfoodphoto said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

Click to expand...

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Click to expand...

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

Click to expand...

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

Click to expand...

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

Click to expand...

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

Click to expand...

So to get equal or better image quality from the M4/3 sensor the lens needs to have the same or larger aperture? I think the only zoom lens that fits the bill is Olympus's 150-400mm lens.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. As far as I know, both lenses are excellent at full zoom, and I'd expect both to have comparable image quality. I was just saying that if you compared images at the same shutter speed, maximum zoom, and widest aperture, the RX10's would be somewhat less noisy.

Since the RX10 offers so much more flexibility, I would choose that one over the Oly - unless I specifically needed the Oly's improved bird identification, tracking, etc.

Personally, that means in addition to the RX10iv, I own the OM-1m2 and the MZ150-600, but not any of the shorter MZ tele-zoom lenses. The 150-400 f/4.5 PRO is a superb lens, but I far prefer the push-pull zoom of the 150-600

Click to expand...

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

I just posted both with and without IDZ in my previous comment, ...

Click to expand...

Provide link to post. You have far too many posts to click through. ;-)

Click to expand...

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

travelfoodphoto said:

Last comment for you from me. You're making this so much more difficult than it needs to be. Just buy an FZ300 and learn how to use it and learn how to compose good photos with it. Look at my challenge entries, for examples. I've used this camera and cheaper cameras to come in the top 10 - 20 percent on DPReview challenges against photos taken with $1000's of photo equipment.

The FZ300 is far more than adequate for your photography needs. If and when you outgrow it, you can buy a far more expensive camera, if you choose.

It's the photographer, not the camera.

Good luck,

Den

Click to expand...

But if you needed more than 600mm and specifically more than 1000mm (and wanted to do BIF with this camera) which camera would you get? ...

Click to expand...

Be similar to asking if needing a car with more than 1000 HP. ;-)

You just want to admit/ understand one first needs to learn photography fundamentals, from your repeated comments another camera not going to do much for you.

The long-zoom bridge cameras all has the same basic short comings:
• Small 1/2.3" sensor that with current tech sensor being used 12MP the optimum
density.
• All the lenses have small max apertures that necessitates use of higher ISO, that
with the small 1/2.3" sensor results in sub-par IQ.

You would be well aware of this by 'EASILY' reading full reviews with sample images, rather than re-asking so many questions.

Hence why, though tempted at times, have not bought the Nikon Coolpix P950 due to its price.

Click to expand...

zm123 said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

Oh? What's the issue with the Nikon B700? I thought that it is similar to the Nikon P900 and Nikon P950. I was considering the Nikon B700 due to its lighter weight (< 600 grams) compared to the P900 (about 900 grams) and P950 (> 1 kilogram).

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

travelfoodphoto said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Owlsfan said:

travelfoodphoto said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

Click to expand...

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Click to expand...

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

Click to expand...

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

Click to expand...

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

Click to expand...

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

Click to expand...

So to get equal or better image quality from the M4/3 sensor the lens needs to have the same or larger aperture? I think the only zoom lens that fits the bill is Olympus's 150-400mm lens.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. As far as I know, both lenses are excellent at full zoom, and I'd expect both to have comparable image quality. I was just saying that if you compared images at the same shutter speed, maximum zoom, and widest aperture, the RX10's would be somewhat less noisy.

Since the RX10 offers so much more flexibility, I would choose that one over the Oly - unless I specifically needed the Oly's improved bird identification, tracking, etc.

Personally, that means in addition to the RX10iv, I own the OM-1m2 and the MZ150-600, but not any of the shorter MZ tele-zoom lenses. The 150-400 f/4.5 PRO is a superb lens, but I far prefer the push-pull zoom of the 150-600

Click to expand...

Is the MZ 150-600 lens made by Sigma, Sherm? It must weigh a lot, but getting 1200mm efl on m4/3 must be absolutely amazing!

Click to expand...

Owlsfan said:

zm123 said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

Oh? What's the issue with the Nikon B700? I thought that it is similar to the Nikon P900 and Nikon P950. I was considering the Nikon B700 due to its lighter weight (< 600 grams) compared to the P900 (about 900 grams) and P950 (> 1 kilogram).

Click to expand...

It's a different sensor. I don't know why but the p950 images just look much cleaner.

The B700 totally smears detail and the camera isn't compatible with DXO.

In good light and when you totally fill the frame it's not bad and you don't notice the noise so much. But it's got a weird fuzziness to my eyes when shooting jpeg.

I can crop my M43 images even using the cheap 100-300 and it looks far far better than the B700 at 1440mm

Maybe I got a dud because I bought it used. But mine is nowhere near as good as the P950 or my FZ330.

Click to expand...

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

travelfoodphoto said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Owlsfan said:

travelfoodphoto said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

Click to expand...

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Click to expand...

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

Click to expand...

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

Click to expand...

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

Click to expand...

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

Click to expand...

So to get equal or better image quality from the M4/3 sensor the lens needs to have the same or larger aperture? I think the only zoom lens that fits the bill is Olympus's 150-400mm lens.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. As far as I know, both lenses are excellent at full zoom, and I'd expect both to have comparable image quality. I was just saying that if you compared images at the same shutter speed, maximum zoom, and widest aperture, the RX10's would be somewhat less noisy.

Since the RX10 offers so much more flexibility, I would choose that one over the Oly - unless I specifically needed the Oly's improved bird identification, tracking, etc.

Personally, that means in addition to the RX10iv, I own the OM-1m2 and the MZ150-600, but not any of the shorter MZ tele-zoom lenses. The 150-400 f/4.5 PRO is a superb lens, but I far prefer the push-pull zoom of the 150-600

Click to expand...

Is the MZ 150-600 lens made by Sigma, Sherm? It must weigh a lot, but getting 1200mm efl on m4/3 must be absolutely amazing!

Click to expand...

It's the same size/weight/shape/function as the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, but it's made by M Zuiko and has different glass. I'm very happy with it. You can see examples using the link in my signature. I had no complaints about the P950 or RX10iv images. P950 was frustrating because it had such a small buffer, but otherwise was a perfectly decent camera. Links to those albums are below also.

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

travelfoodphoto said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Owlsfan said:

travelfoodphoto said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

Click to expand...

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Click to expand...

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

Click to expand...

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

Click to expand...

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

Click to expand...

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

Click to expand...

So to get equal or better image quality from the M4/3 sensor the lens needs to have the same or larger aperture? I think the only zoom lens that fits the bill is Olympus's 150-400mm lens.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. As far as I know, both lenses are excellent at full zoom, and I'd expect both to have comparable image quality. I was just saying that if you compared images at the same shutter speed, maximum zoom, and widest aperture, the RX10's would be somewhat less noisy.

Since the RX10 offers so much more flexibility, I would choose that one over the Oly - unless I specifically needed the Oly's improved bird identification, tracking, etc.

Personally, that means in addition to the RX10iv, I own the OM-1m2 and the MZ150-600, but not any of the shorter MZ tele-zoom lenses. The 150-400 f/4.5 PRO is a superb lens, but I far prefer the push-pull zoom of the 150-600

Click to expand...

Is the MZ 150-600 lens made by Sigma, Sherm? It must weigh a lot, but getting 1200mm efl on m4/3 must be absolutely amazing!

Click to expand...

It's the same size/weight/shape/function as the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, but it's made by M Zuiko and has different glass. I'm very happy with it. You can see examples using the link in my signature. I had no complaints about the P950 or RX10iv images. P950 was frustrating because it had such a small buffer, but otherwise was a perfectly decent camera. Links to those albums are below also.

Click to expand...

Thanks Sherm. You don't have your P950 anymore? I was curious about what you thought about shutter lag with that camera. Is it good, bad or average would you say?

Click to expand...

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

travelfoodphoto said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Owlsfan said:

travelfoodphoto said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

Click to expand...

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Click to expand...

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

Click to expand...

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

Click to expand...

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

Click to expand...

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

Click to expand...

So to get equal or better image quality from the M4/3 sensor the lens needs to have the same or larger aperture? I think the only zoom lens that fits the bill is Olympus's 150-400mm lens.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. As far as I know, both lenses are excellent at full zoom, and I'd expect both to have comparable image quality. I was just saying that if you compared images at the same shutter speed, maximum zoom, and widest aperture, the RX10's would be somewhat less noisy.

Since the RX10 offers so much more flexibility, I would choose that one over the Oly - unless I specifically needed the Oly's improved bird identification, tracking, etc.

Personally, that means in addition to the RX10iv, I own the OM-1m2 and the MZ150-600, but not any of the shorter MZ tele-zoom lenses. The 150-400 f/4.5 PRO is a superb lens, but I far prefer the push-pull zoom of the 150-600

Click to expand...

Is the MZ 150-600 lens made by Sigma, Sherm? It must weigh a lot, but getting 1200mm efl on m4/3 must be absolutely amazing!

Click to expand...

It's the same size/weight/shape/function as the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, but it's made by M Zuiko and has different glass. I'm very happy with it. You can see examples using the link in my signature. I had no complaints about the P950 or RX10iv images. P950 was frustrating because it had such a small buffer, but otherwise was a perfectly decent camera. Links to those albums are below also.

Click to expand...

Thanks Sherm. You don't have your P950 anymore? I was curious about what you thought about shutter lag with that camera. Is it good, bad or average would you say?

Click to expand...

I thought it had an excellent lens, but the RX10iv was better where the focal lengths overlapped. When I got the OM-1 I gifted it to my daughter. I didn't notice anything unusual about its shutter lag.

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Owlsfan said:

zm123 said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

Oh? What's the issue with the Nikon B700? I thought that it is similar to the Nikon P900 and Nikon P950. I was considering the Nikon B700 due to its lighter weight (< 600 grams) compared to the P900 (about 900 grams) and P950 (> 1 kilogram).

Click to expand...

It's a different sensor. I don't know why but the p950 images just look much cleaner.

The B700 totally smears detail and the camera isn't compatible with DXO.

In good light and when you totally fill the frame it's not bad and you don't notice the noise so much. But it's got a weird fuzziness to my eyes when shooting jpeg.

I can crop my M43 images even using the cheap 100-300 and it looks far far better than the B700 at 1440mm

Maybe I got a dud because I bought it used. But mine is nowhere near as good as the P950 or my FZ330.

Click to expand...

Would you say that the B700 is on par with the FZ80D or worse?

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

travelfoodphoto said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Owlsfan said:

travelfoodphoto said:

Owlsfan said:

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Click to expand...

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

Click to expand...

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Click to expand...

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

Click to expand...

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

Click to expand...

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

Click to expand...

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

Click to expand...

So to get equal or better image quality from the M4/3 sensor the lens needs to have the same or larger aperture? I think the only zoom lens that fits the bill is Olympus's 150-400mm lens.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. As far as I know, both lenses are excellent at full zoom, and I'd expect both to have comparable image quality. I was just saying that if you compared images at the same shutter speed, maximum zoom, and widest aperture, the RX10's would be somewhat less noisy.

Since the RX10 offers so much more flexibility, I would choose that one over the Oly - unless I specifically needed the Oly's improved bird identification, tracking, etc.

Personally, that means in addition to the RX10iv, I own the OM-1m2 and the MZ150-600, but not any of the shorter MZ tele-zoom lenses. The 150-400 f/4.5 PRO is a superb lens, but I far prefer the push-pull zoom of the 150-600

Click to expand...

Is the MZ 150-600 lens made by Sigma, Sherm? It must weigh a lot, but getting 1200mm efl on m4/3 must be absolutely amazing!

Click to expand...

It's the same size/weight/shape/function as the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, but it's made by M Zuiko and has different glass. I'm very happy with it. You can see examples using the link in my signature. I had no complaints about the P950 or RX10iv images. P950 was frustrating because it had such a small buffer, but otherwise was a perfectly decent camera. Links to those albums are below also.

Click to expand...

Thanks Sherm. You don't have your P950 anymore? I was curious about what you thought about shutter lag with that camera. Is it good, bad or average would you say?

Click to expand...

I thought it had an excellent lens, but the RX10iv was better where the focal lengths overlapped. When I got the OM-1 I gifted it to my daughter. I didn't notice anything unusual about its shutter lag.

Click to expand...

Thanks, so all three cameras were pretty good in the shutter lag department?

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon you are right I do spray and pray but more recently, I have just been using single shot mode because the buffer slows everything down after 10 images. So the BIF were more the result of lucky imaging not spray and pray. I reduced them to 2400x1800, no auto processing used except for the cardinal that was flying away.

I think your images are great, but they are from a closer distance, I think? Mine are from 100 feet away or more. ...

Click to expand...

No that much difference approximately 90 ft. Hence has little to do with differences in IQ. Has more to do with technique and PP.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

The image with the single gull in flight is at 1200mm (no IDZ), the one with the two gulls is at 2400 (2x IDZ) the one with the perched cardinal is at 2400mm (2x IDZ) and the one with the flying cardinal is at 1200mm (no IDZ) but auto processing used...

Click to expand...

The "Auto processing" did not appear help, images look washed out and OOF.

I did some "really quick" tweaks to couple of the images.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Jon, did you like those two more than the rest? ...

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

I am confused as to where the haziness comes from, ...

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

.... your PP makes them look much better! What did you do to remove the haze and increase the clarity? ...

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

If it is of benefit, I'll send the original images at their full size.



...

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

... What do you think of IDZ vs full optical zoom on this camera, Jon? ...

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

If you think the FZ80D would give me an improvement over this ...

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

... I'll pick one up. I like that it has a dedicated electronic shutter mode like the FZ300 has. It would be better for burst shooting too. ...

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

I just posted both with and without IDZ in my previous comment, ...

Click to expand...

Provide link to post. You have far too many posts to click through. ;-)

Click to expand...

You found it, Jon! I love how you PP the images. I do have a question I forgot to ask in my comment back-- you said the cardinal and blue jay images were from approximately 90 feet away, how did you get the birds to look so large from such a distance? I feel like mine are too small from about the same distance. ,...

Click to expand...

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon you are right I do spray and pray but more recently, I have just been using single shot mode because the buffer slows everything down after 10 images. So the BIF were more the result of lucky imaging not spray and pray. I reduced them to 2400x1800, no auto processing used except for the cardinal that was flying away.

I think your images are great, but they are from a closer distance, I think? Mine are from 100 feet away or more. ...

Click to expand...

No that much difference approximately 90 ft. Hence has little to do with differences in IQ. Has more to do with technique and PP.

Jon_T said:

The image with the single gull in flight is at 1200mm (no IDZ), the one with the two gulls is at 2400 (2x IDZ) the one with the perched cardinal is at 2400mm (2x IDZ) and the one with the flying cardinal is at 1200mm (no IDZ) but auto processing used...

Click to expand...

The "Auto processing" did not appear help, images look washed out and OOF.

I did some "really quick" tweaks to couple of the images.

Jon_T said:

Click to expand...

Jon_T said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Jon, did you like those two more than the rest? ...

Click to expand...

They were a 'tad' sharper.

Jon_T said:

I am confused as to where the haziness comes from, ...

Click to expand...

Are you using a filter? ... Lens flare? Among other possibilities; e.g., shooting through window, etc. That's something you'll to figure out.

Jon_T said:

.... your PP makes them look much better! What did you do to remove the haze and increase the clarity? ...

Click to expand...

As noted I'm using PSE (PhotoShop Elements), and "I" do the PP — not Auto PP. PSE has a Haze Removal tool that allows adjustments for the image. Also adjusted light levels, contrast, and saturation.

Jon_T said:

If it is of benefit, I'll send the original images at their full size.



...

Click to expand...

Not really, they are all OOF and very grainy.



Not much that can been done with these images.

Jon_T said:

... What do you think of IDZ vs full optical zoom on this camera, Jon? ...

Click to expand...

Cannot say by your posted images. As I recommend several times previously you "NEED" to go to the Fujifilm FinePix Talk forum and ASK how other XS-1 users HERE get "much" better IQ than you.

Jon_T said:

If you think the FZ80D would give me an improvement over this ...

Click to expand...

As I have already replied to you 'SEVERAL' times, NO! For one to get good images from the FZ80 they NEED to understand the Basics of Photography and apply that knowledge to determine how to use the FZ80 "WITHIN" its limitations, and need to actually PP images—which you've posted you do not want to do. As I mentioned recently you do not 'heed' the advice given to you—you proceed doing things the way "YOU" want to them.

Jon_T said:

... I'll pick one up. I like that it has a dedicated electronic shutter mode like the FZ300 has. It would be better for burst shooting too. ...

Click to expand...

Sorry have not seen any of your FZ300 images posted that have at least 'good' IQ.

FIRST be able to post FZ300 images with the IQ equal to other FZ300 regular users on this forum. If unable to get good IQ images with the FZ300, you certainly will NOT get good images with the FZ80.

Click to expand...

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon you are right I do spray and pray but more recently, I have just been using single shot mode because the buffer slows everything down after 10 images. So the BIF were more the result of lucky imaging not spray and pray. I reduced them to 2400x1800, no auto processing used except for the cardinal that was flying away.

I think your images are great, but they are from a closer distance, I think? Mine are from 100 feet away or more. ...

Click to expand...

No that much difference approximately 90 ft. Hence has little to do with differences in IQ. Has more to do with technique and PP.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

The image with the single gull in flight is at 1200mm (no IDZ), the one with the two gulls is at 2400 (2x IDZ) the one with the perched cardinal is at 2400mm (2x IDZ) and the one with the flying cardinal is at 1200mm (no IDZ) but auto processing used...

Click to expand...

The "Auto processing" did not appear help, images look washed out and OOF.

I did some "really quick" tweaks to couple of the images.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jon, did you like those two more than the rest? ...

Click to expand...

They were a 'tad' sharper.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

I am confused as to where the haziness comes from, ...

Click to expand...

Are you using a filter? ... Lens flare? Among other possibilities; e.g., shooting through window, etc. That's something you'll to figure out.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

.... your PP makes them look much better! What did you do to remove the haze and increase the clarity? ...

Click to expand...

As noted I'm using PSE (PhotoShop Elements), and "I" do the PP — not Auto PP. PSE has a Haze Removal tool that allows adjustments for the image. Also adjusted light levels, contrast, and saturation.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

If it is of benefit, I'll send the original images at their full size.

...

Click to expand...

Not really, they are all OOF and very grainy.

Not much that can been done with these images.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

... What do you think of IDZ vs full optical zoom on this camera, Jon? ...

Click to expand...

Cannot say by your posted images. As I recommend several times previously you "NEED" to go to the Fujifilm FinePix Talk forum and ASK how other XS-1 users HERE get "much" better IQ than you.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

If you think the FZ80D would give me an improvement over this ...

Click to expand...

As I have already replied to you 'SEVERAL' times, NO! For one to get good images from the FZ80 they NEED to understand the Basics of Photography and apply that knowledge to determine how to use the FZ80 "WITHIN" its limitations, and need to actually PP images—which you've posted you do not want to do. As I mentioned recently you do not 'heed' the advice given to you—you proceed doing things the way "YOU" want to them.

OutsideTheMatrix said:

... I'll pick one up. I like that it has a dedicated electronic shutter mode like the FZ300 has. It would be better for burst shooting too. ...

Click to expand...

Sorry have not seen any of your FZ300 images posted that have at least 'good' IQ.

FIRST be able to post FZ300 images with the IQ equal to other FZ300 regular users on this forum. If unable to get good IQ images with the FZ300, you certainly will NOT get good images with the FZ80.

Click to expand...

Jon I rechecked the images folder and I'm sorry I miswrote about IDZ, neither of the above images you worked on used IDZ, only the image with the two gulls used it. Everything else used the full optical zoom only. It's hard to tell with Fuji cameras because they don't write if digital zoom was used in the exif info.

I also checked lot data to determine an approximate distance to that tree where cardinals (and other birds like grackles, mockingbirds and robins) all congregate and it's more like 130 feet, not 100 feet.

I also went through my camera folder and found what I consider is by far the best IDZ picture I have taken with this camera. One thing I have noticed is that if any part of the bird is in shadow, there is a huge loss of detail and very distracting noise artifacting. If the entire bird is well lit by the sun then this problem does not happen. In the future I'm going to make sure I don't use IDZ unless the entire bird is well lit by the sun and no part is in shadow.

Please let me know what you think of this image at 2400mm (with 2x IDZ) from about 130 feet away. And if you can process it to make it even better. I'll post the original full size image as well as the 2400x1800 resized one. No kind of processing has been performed at all.

I use a Fuji 72mm UV filter (the one recommended for this camera) and do shoot through a window. Also the camera is the Fuji Finepix S-1 not the X-S1 one (which has a larger 2/3" sensor and whose zoom is goes to 624mm.)

Click to expand...

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

I just posted both with and without IDZ in my previous comment, ...

Click to expand...

Provide link to post. You have far too many posts to click through. ;-)

Click to expand...

You found it, Jon! I love how you PP the images. I do have a question I forgot to ask in my comment back-- you said the cardinal and blue jay images were from approximately 90 feet away, how did you get the birds to look so large from such a distance? I feel like mine are too small from about the same distance. ,...

Click to expand...

Most likely longer 35mm EFL:



All about "learning" how to use camera settings. I simply set the FZ80 to 9MP for a central image crop, Already explained to you previously (and provided link to my post) that with the FZ1000 "I" find that the 10MP setting overall provides the best IQ with iZoom.

Click to expand...

sherman_levine said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon_T said:

OutsideTheMatrix said:

Jon you are right I do spray and pray but more recently, I have just been using single shot mode because the buffer slows everything down after 10 images. So the BIF were more the result of lucky imaging not spray and pray. I reduced them to 2400x1800, no auto processing used except for the cardinal that was flying away.

I think your images are great, but they are from a closer distance, I think? Mine are from 100 feet away or more. ...

Click to expand...

No that much difference approximately 90 ft. Hence has little to do with differences in IQ. Has more to do with technique and PP.

sherman_levine said:

The image with the single gull in flight is at 1200mm (no IDZ), the one with the two gulls is at 2400 (2x IDZ) the one with the perched cardinal is at 2400mm (2x IDZ) and the one with the flying cardinal is at 1200mm (no IDZ) but auto processing used...

Click to expand...

The "Auto processing" did not appear help, images look washed out and OOF.

I did some "really quick" tweaks to couple of the images.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jon, did you like those two more than the rest? ...

Click to expand...

They were a 'tad' sharper.

sherman_levine said:

I am confused as to where the haziness comes from, ...

Click to expand...

Are you using a filter? ... Lens flare? Among other possibilities; e.g., shooting through window, etc. That's something you'll to figure out.

sherman_levine said:

.... your PP makes them look much better! What did you do to remove the haze and increase the clarity? ...

Click to expand...

As noted I'm using PSE (PhotoShop Elements), and "I" do the PP — not Auto PP. PSE has a Haze Removal tool that allows adjustments for the image. Also adjusted light levels, contrast, and saturation.

sherman_levine said:

If it is of benefit, I'll send the original images at their full size.

...

Click to expand...

Not really, they are all OOF and very grainy.

Not much that can been done with these images.

sherman_levine said:

... What do you think of IDZ vs full optical zoom on this camera, Jon? ...

Click to expand...

Cannot say by your posted images. As I recommend several times previously you "NEED" to go to the Fujifilm FinePix Talk forum and ASK how other XS-1 users HERE get "much" better IQ than you.

sherman_levine said:

If you think the FZ80D would give me an improvement over this ...

Click to expand...

As I have already replied to you 'SEVERAL' times, NO! For one to get good images from the FZ80 they NEED to understand the Basics of Photography and apply that knowledge to determine how to use the FZ80 "WITHIN" its limitations, and need to actually PP images—which you've posted you do not want to do. As I mentioned recently you do not 'heed' the advice given to you—you proceed doing things the way "YOU" want to them.

sherman_levine said:

... I'll pick one up. I like that it has a dedicated electronic shutter mode like the FZ300 has. It would be better for burst shooting too. ...

Click to expand...

Sorry have not seen any of your FZ300 images posted that have at least 'good' IQ.

FIRST be able to post FZ300 images with the IQ equal to other FZ300 regular users on this forum. If unable to get good IQ images with the FZ300, you certainly will NOT get good images with the FZ80.

Click to expand...

Jon I rechecked the images folder and I'm sorry I miswrote about IDZ, neither of the above images you worked on used IDZ, only the image with the two gulls used it. Everything else used the full optical zoom only. It's hard to tell with Fuji cameras because they don't write if digital zoom was used in the exif info.

I also checked lot data to determine an approximate distance to that tree where cardinals (and other birds like grackles, mockingbirds and robins) all congregate and it's more like 130 feet, not 100 feet.

I also went through my camera folder and found what I consider is by far the best IDZ picture I have taken with this camera. One thing I have noticed is that if any part of the bird is in shadow, there is a huge loss of detail and very distracting noise artifacting. If the entire bird is well lit by the sun then this problem does not happen. In the future I'm going to make sure I don't use IDZ unless the entire bird is well lit by the sun and no part is in shadow.

Please let me know what you think of this image at 2400mm (with 2x IDZ) from about 130 feet away. And if you can process it to make it even better. I'll post the original full size image as well as the 2400x1800 resized one. No kind of processing has been performed at all.

I use a Fuji 72mm UV filter (the one recommended for this camera) and do shoot through a window. Also the camera is the Fuji Finepix S-1 not the X-S1 one (which has a larger 2/3" sensor and whose zoom is goes to 624mm.)

Click to expand...

I think you'd do yourself a service by dumping CIZ (and digital zoom, and anything else which turns X real pixels into nX magic pixels). Just take your picture, crop it, and post it.

Also, if the camera manufacturers thought shooting thru window glass was a good idea, they'd use window glass for their lenses instead of the expensive stuff. Window glass reflects, it's not clear, and its surface isn't flat.

Click to expand...