FZ200 - still worth buying?

[Settepotet]

Dear all.

I'm having a headache here, so I need some input from the experts.

I'm going to buy a bridge camera, and then I ran into a wall regarding which one. Please hear me out:

The main type of usage will be for filming grouse hunting in the Norwegian mountains, and photography of said activity. And taking pictures/video of my family, dog etc. So, the things which matters are: As light as possible, good focus on moving subjects, long range tele and good video quality with 1080p/60(50 for PAL) as minimum. And of course, the budget is limited.

The weight factor excludes any mirrorless/DSLR, since I would need additional lenses and this would be too bulky and weigh too much to carry around all day. And the price would skyrocket.

I got a second hand FZ200 (almost new) available for a very good price, but I'm wondering: Is it still worth it, or should I go far a newer camera? The FZ200 has almost everything I need. Good tele (with the possibility for an extra teleconverter addon), not too bulky, good image and video quality. But the design is almost 3 (!) years old. This bothers me a bit, and there is still no sign of a successor. The reviews for this camera are almost to good to be true, so I'm sure it was good in 2012. But is it still good?

Are there any good available options on the same price range with same or better specifications for my usage?

And then we have the FZ1000. It's large, it's pricey and it has a lower tele. But it has 4K which can be cropped and compensate for lacking tele. The FZ1000 is like a devil on my shoulder, taunting it's cousin, the FZ200. Buy meeee, buy meeeee!

Any input would be highly appreciated!

BR

Jo

 

[kkardster]

From your own description it sounds like the FZ200 does what you need. And it has longer reach and is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the FZ1000. I'd suggest starting there - you can always move up later if the FZ200 doesn't quite do it for you.

 

[IAMAI]

Dear all.

I'm having a headache here, so I need some input from the experts.

I'm going to buy a bridge camera, and then I ran into a wall regarding which one. Please hear me out:

The main type of usage will be for filming grouse hunting in the Norwegian mountains, and photography of said activity. And taking pictures/video of my family, dog etc. So, the things which matters are: As light as possible, good focus on moving subjects, long range tele and good video quality with 1080p/60(50 for PAL) as minimum. And of course, the budget is limited.

The weight factor excludes any mirrorless/DSLR, since I would need additional lenses and this would be too bulky and weigh too much to carry around all day. And the price would skyrocket.

I got a second hand FZ200 (almost new) available for a very good price, but I'm wondering: Is it still worth it, or should I go far a newer camera? The FZ200 has almost everything I need. Good tele (with the possibility for an extra teleconverter addon), not too bulky, good image and video quality. But the design is almost 3 (!) years old. This bothers me a bit, and there is still no sign of a successor. The reviews for this camera are almost to good to be true, so I'm sure it was good in 2012. But is it still good?

Are there any good available options on the same price range with same or better specifications for my usage?

And then we have the FZ1000. It's large, it's pricey and it has a lower tele. But it has 4K which can be cropped and compensate for lacking tele. The FZ1000 is like a devil on my shoulder, taunting it's cousin, the FZ200. Buy meeee, buy meeeee!

Any input would be highly appreciated!

BR

Jo

First off, look here to see the size of the 200 vs. 1000 FZ's I just posted this earlier. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55284835

The 1000 is bigger , no doubt about it. I have been using the FZ28 for the last 5 years and have taken some pretty good pictures with it, and it is only 10 megapixel and 18x zoom.

I just bought the FZ200 before Christmas thinking it had much better features , highly rated, and got it cheap on Amazon. Zoom went up to 24x, pixel count went from 10 to 12 megapixels, and it has a full swivel LCD. Picture quality was pretty much the same but the video went from 1280 x 720 up to full HD.

The FZ200 was great, until we decided to go to Hawaii, where I knew that the 4k video was the best way to capture the whales breaching. So the wife talked me into getting the FZ1000 ( yep, crazy isn't it ) because we would probably never make that trip again, and we wanted better video and pics than what we got last time.

Anyway, from what you are saying, it sounds like the FZ200 should do a fantastic job. I think that what they can do with bridge cameras is probably reaching it's limits, or at least there won't be any more quantum leaps in performance. So the FZ200 will be good for quite some time and the price you paid will be well worth it, and much cheaper than the FZ1000.

As far as other brands of cameras goes, someone else will be able to address that better than I.

Good luck with whatever you decide on.

Mark

 

[Rodger1943]

I have both the FZ1000 and the FZ200. You can get great still shots off the 4K video, but if you want to use the video as video, rather than just another way to get still shots, then the FZ200 will work well for you. Not many TVs will play 4k video and my computer shows it as a jerky video. If you have a new computer then it will probably be OK, but my Apple Laptop is over 4 years old now and struggles with the larger file sizes that 4k creates.

You can also take 3mp still shots while using the video on the FZ200. You can do the same on the FZ1000, but it only takes 2mp shots. Some of the stills I have from my video on the FZ200 have been quite good.

Everyone else here has suggested the FZ200 will be best for your use and I agree with them.

 

[Settepotet]

Well, that seals the deal. Thanks for your input all.

I now just bought the FZ200 second hand, and I'm REALLY looking forward to it. I even managed to lower the price even more..

Next on the list is a an adapter tube and teleconverter, and I should be ready to really begin to take photography to the next level.

I'm considering the Olympus TCON-17(X or not?) or the Panasonic DMW-LT55. The Nikon TC E17ED seems to be considered as the best, but it's impossible to find here in Norway.

Now I just have to wait for the camera to arrive, patience patience...

 

[p90]

Defenitely it is still worth buying.

 

[Vandyu]

I'd say it's definitely worth buying, especially if you find it on sale at a great price. I captured mine on the annual Black Friday specials. Got it for $297 new from B&H. Just because a technology is a couple of years old doesn't mean it cannot give you exactly what you want in a camera. I am not optimistic that we will see another camera with the same features of the FZ200, especially its constant 2.8 aperture packed in a reasonably small package with 25-600mm zoom range. While the FZ1000 is a great camera, it is larger, heavier, and costs more. It's not an apples to apples comparison, either.

If Panasonic produces a true replacement model, it will likely be in late summer. Otherwise, updating the FZ70, keeping the FZ1000 with a few improvements (can you say FZ1100), and letting the FZ200 slip into the history books is likely.

 

[Rudi Maes]

If a camera was good in 2012, it's still good now. There may be better (and more expensive) choices now, the FZ200 is far from obsolete. I still like this camera.

Rudi

 

[nicodimus22]

If it meets your needs and budget, it's worth buying. It meets all of my needs except one (range, which is why I bought the FZ70.) The fact that the camera has retained its value so well speaks to what a great value it is for many people.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicodimus22/sets/

 

[GeraldW]

I can highly recommend the FZ200. I've also owned the FZ150, and the SX50HS, and I have the Canon 70D DSLR with the 18-135 STM lens. The FZ200 beat them all for resolution at ISO 100. I even tried my 60 mm macro lens on the 70D, and the FZ200 out-resolved that as well. As the ISO rises, the smaller sensors have more noise than the FZ200; but you still get nice shots at ISO 400.

I was quite enthusiastic about getting an FZ1000 to replace my 70D system; but I discovered the width is the same as my 70D, and the height only a little less. I put a small lens on the 70D so it had the weight and depth of the FZ1000, and compared to the FZ200, it is way too big and heavy for my needs.

You're probably a lot younger and more physically fit than I am; but even so, I think the FZ200 is a better fit for your needs. Down the road, I may eventually get the FZ1000; but I am afraid it will be like my 70D, at home, sitting on a shelf.

 

[seajunky]

I have the FZ200. No choice lighter, longer lens, takes fantastic pictures, and video. Its a no brainer.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXFZ200 EVERY TIMEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[djddpr]

Welcome the the forum.

My wife and I bought FZ200's almost two years ago. We paid less than the suggested $600 retail price. We have been happy with the results. You could look at this forum's weekly wildlife thread and several "birding" posts from several photographers.

David Dollevoet