Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 vs. Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 for wildlife photography

Hi there! Just registered, but I have already used your forum to acquire a lot of new information and insights, so thanks to all the contributors!

I'm an enthusiastic wildlife photographer and love to go outdoors (and holidays) to spot and 'capture' all sorts of animals (ranging from reptiles and amphibians to mammals, birds and insects). For this, I am currently using the Fuji HS20EXR. Though this camera has a great range (35mm equiv: 24mm to 720mm), the image quality does not satisfy me. So I am looking for a next step up. After quite some reading I narrowed it down to these two:

Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 25-400mm F2.8-4

and

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 with VARIO 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6, Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro (and probably Olympus M ZD 9-18mm f/4-5.6)

For me, reasons to choose the FZ1000 are:

• cheaper (estimated €800 vs €2200)
• No need to change  lenses (quickly ready when suddenly spot something)
• No need to carry lenses (during long/ adventurous hikings)

And for the GX7:

• Better image quality/ larger sensor (m3/4 vs. 1'')
• Longer range (600 vs 400)
• great macro lens (Oly 600mm f/2.8)
• Possibility to 'grow' (buying additional lenses/ upgrade body)

Some additional notes

• video options are not really important to me
• I dumped all DSLRs, because of their large body and lens sizes
• maximum money available to spend is around 2k

So I was hoping, someone could share their experience or viewpoints on this issue. Maybe giving me some good general advice I am open to all suggestions, so if there are other cameras (more) perfectly suited for shooting wildlife (maybe dslr), I like to hear that too.

Looking forward to your responses,

Ewout Knoester

FZ1000 can macro very well, by the way. And has better ergonomics, too. And probably focuses faster.

Thanks for your replies! I don't really understand the quoting system, hope this is clear:

tt321 wrote:

honeyiscool wrote:

FZ1000 can macro very well, by the way.

Works esp. well with achromat macro adapters, which can easily be found with 62mm size. The combo will give large working distances which may be important in the field.

The combo will give large working distances

How does this work? I know that a 3dpt macro lens will enable the camera to focus from a distance of 0.25m instead of 1m (at 400mm). But what will happen if I use the 3dpt lens and keep a distance of 1m?

Related: the magnification of the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro is 1:1, I can't find this value for the fz1000. And could a macro adapter increase this as well?

And has better ergonomics, too.

Only if you are most comfortable with the current predominant DSLR style. If you, instead, are more comfortable with traditional mechanical SLR or range finder style bodies then the GX7 is better. The GX7 has a touchscreen, which can be incredibly important in field/nature shooting. It also allows many more lens aperture stops to be used and is not limited to F8, which may be important for DoF or exposure considerations. If one goes for the FZ an ND filter should be one of the first accessaries to consider.

ND filter should be one of the first accessaries to consider.

If I go for the Fz, I will definitely invest in good filters

In addition, the FZ is two pounds and that bulk no matter what you do, and the GX7 can be much lighter and smaller if you just put a pancake lens on it and carry nothing else.

And probably focuses faster.

Yes, but other aspects of delay should need careful study. All-in-one cameras in general are less responsive than system cameras, at least used to be. Does the zoom move as fast as the mechanical zooming of the 100-300? Does the camera have other areas of sluggishness? One needs to go to a shop to compare.

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xiafei/

Thanks for your reply a photo's. Always nice to see some output! You mention that there's little difference in image quality between the fz1000 and m4/3, but what about depth of field? Though your attached photos look great, I would assume that it could be even better/ easier with the m4/3. Is that also your experience?

trog100 wrote:

FZ1000 or the G6 and its 100-300 600mm equivalent.. overall i would choose the FZ1000.. its 400mm equivalent is very usable even hand held the extra reach the 100-300 has isnt very usable..

How does the electric lens of the fz work compared to the g6? My old fuji has a mechanical zoom, and I just love that. Is working with the fz1000 also fine?

buy the FZ1000 and then think about a used G6 afterwards.. i did it the other way around but i didnt know any better at the time.. he he

But than it's just buying the fz1000 as intermediate camera. I think it's a bit to expensive for that (why not go directly for the better of the two?). Thanks for your reply

You’ve encouraged me to sign up and post here for the first time!

Your situation is not too unlike mine. Until about a year and half ago, I was carrying a Panasonic FZ150 superzoom (1/2.3” sensor, 24-600 mm focal length at full-frame equivalent). Maybe 90% of my shooting is while hiking and backpacking. My subjects are combination of landscapes, wildflowers, and animals. I consider myself a good “snapshooter” but not an art photographer. I too was getting disappointed with image quality.

In late 2013 I bought an Olympus E-M5 with the 24-100mm (full frame equivalent) kit lens, the entry-level zoom (80-300mm full frame equivalent), and the 17mm f/1.8 prime (34mm full frame). It produces superb pictures, but I didn’t love changing lenses on the trail. At home I found I had to fiddle quite a bit with the RAW files to get the color and tone balance to my taste. Autofocus could miss on low-contrast targets, but manual adjustment was easy. Shutter shock was real and I mostly avoided 1/50 – 1/160 shutter speeds (inclusive), even with an anti-shock 1/8 second delay.

Last summer, when the FZ1000 came out, I ordered it, thinking I would get most of the benefits of the E-M5 without the liabilities. Yes, no lens changing. Yes, wonderful pictures with less post processing. But some liabilities too: out long, at 400mm, the FZ1000’s focus seemed a little soft. The viewfinder wanted to be viewed pretty much dead-on for good results. Off-axis, there’s distortion. The camera was big -- DSLR sized – and seemed awkward in my hands, especially when trying to manual focus while using the viewfinder. I sold it.

While I was playing with the FZ1000, I bought a superzoom lens for the E-M5, the Panasonic 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 (24-280 full frame equivalent). The combination of the E-M5 with the 14-140 solved the on-the-trail lens changing problem, and it’s quite sharp enough at maximum zoom. It’s feasible to crop a RAW image by a factor of two in each dimension and get a sort-of-full-frame-equivalent zoom of 560mm that’s fine on screen or if you print not too large.

In late January, I bought a GX7 body. I didn’t really need it, but I saw a good deal. I've been playing with it for the last month. Again, fine image quality. Its colors are closer to what I want than the E-M5’s, but it still demands some post-processing effort. Love the electronic shutter. The GX7 seems to have the more reliable autofocus, especially using its pinpoint mode, but I like its viewfinder less than the E-M5’s in support of manual focus touch-ups. I’m still working that through, though. I have more to learn on how to use the viewfinder to its best advantage. It’s more a normal camera in build: it doesn’t fell as rugged as the Olympus. One big downside of the GX7 is that its in-body image stabilization does not show in the viewfinder image, so it’s hard to shoot with non-stabilized long lenses.

So what to suggest to you?

Before you buy an FZ1000, see if you can try one out. You may or may not find the same handling issues. Do be aware that the quality at the longest zoom can be soft. (Follow up: I just checked back at archived pictures. That impression about long zooms is based on only two or three shots, so take it as a pretty tentative observation.)

Of your two, I think the GX7 is the nicer option, but maybe go for a simpler lens collection to start. I like that Panasonic 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 as an on-the-trail lens. If you stay under 1600 ISO or so, you can crop to get a sort-of-full-frame-equivalent zoom of 560mm. You may not need the 100-300m. And it covers the middle range nicely too. As for the viewfinder, here too, see if you can try one out.

At least consider the new EM-5 II, perhaps with the new Olympus 14-150mm lens. If all my gear disappeared, that’s probably what I would buy today (along with a fast, moderately-wide prime). It’s a stout combination for in-the-field use and the new shutter looks like a winner. The Olympus color model remains. I don’t love it, but I’ve mostly learned to work with it.

Finally a little warning. You may discover how much you appreciate the HS20 after fiddling with one of these. As I was learning the E-M5, I certainly was reminded of the FZ150’s virtues. In open sunlight, the superzoom’s image quality isn’t all that much worse, provided you don’t pixel-peep. The superzoom is easier to shoot – sometimes important with wildlife – and post-process. You don’t have to worry about depth-of-field. (That one, of course, cuts both ways.) But I’ll also note I’ve pretty much tucked the FZ150 away for good.