Help! E-M5+14-140 Pana Vs FZ1000

Hi,

I'm in a bit of a crises in my photography gear right now and would love the brain storming from others.

I have an E-M5 with an assortment of primes. I use to have the Oly 14-150mm and was disappointed at its performance on the long end so I got rid of it and purchased the Panasonic 45-150mm. The 45-150mm was excellent at 150mm wide open. Fast forward, I really got frustrated with changing lenses while hiking or out taking photos and really missed the superzoom of the 14-150mm.

I recently went out and got the FZ1000 which is an all out superzoom. I'm very happy with its performance. It can't possibly match the E-M5 with primes but it's sharp enough for my use and I really loved the flexibility of the zoom range letting me compose my shot the way I want to. You really grab the shot you want which is in my opinion, the reason why you buy a camera.

However it's not all good. The FZ1000 is a monster in size. I put it in my sling-bag and it swallows space. I really miss the portability of the E-M5+20mm and if I ever needed the zoom, I'd pack that separately which considerably saves space. So now I'm having second thoughts about using the 14-140mm Panasonic which is said to be better than the Olympus 14-150mm.

So anyone out there compared the Panasonic 14-140mm II to the FZ1000 on a M43 body? Any ideas in general or reflections? All discussions welcome here

Also, any questions you have on the FZ1000 are welcome so long as I have it

Please no bashing. Gear is gear. Respect the humans behind them.

highwave wrote:

Hi,

I'm in a bit of a crises in my photography gear right now and would love the brain storming from others.

I have an E-M5 with an assortment of primes. I use to have the Oly 14-150mm and was disappointed at its performance on the long end so I got rid of it and purchased the Panasonic 45-150mm. The 45-150mm was excellent at 150mm wide open. Fast forward, I really got frustrated with changing lenses while hiking or out taking photos and really missed the superzoom of the 14-150mm.

I recently went out and got the FZ1000 which is an all out superzoom. I'm very happy with its performance. It can't possibly match the E-M5 with primes but it's sharp enough for my use and I really loved the flexibility of the zoom range letting me compose my shot the way I want to. You really grab the shot you want which is in my opinion, the reason why you buy a camera.

However it's not all good. The FZ1000 is a monster in size. I put it in my sling-bag and it swallows space. I really miss the portability of the E-M5+20mm and if I ever needed the zoom, I'd pack that separately which considerably saves space. So now I'm having second thoughts about using the 14-140mm Panasonic which is said to be better than the Olympus 14-150mm.

So anyone out there compared the Panasonic 14-140mm II to the FZ1000 on a M43 body? Any ideas in general or reflections? All discussions welcome here

Also, any questions you have on the FZ1000 are welcome so long as I have it

Please no bashing. Gear is gear. Respect the humans behind them.

It's an age old problem, how much quality is good enough?  If you like the convenience of the FZ1000 but find it too large sometimes, maybe what you need is something like the LX100 to carry when the range isn't needed.  As far as the 14-140 vs 14-150, most comparisons show they're pretty close in quality although both have been updated in the last year or so and may be somewhat better than the old models.

If you don't need the tele range, you may be happy with one of the shorter zooms such as the 12-32 lens or the 14-42 II Panny, both good kit lenses, or go pro with the12-35 2.8 Panny or 12-40 2.8 Oly.

Good luck!

I have the Oly 14-150 and the Oly 14-150 II.   There is a quite a noticeable increase in image quality on the new lens.   Slightly sharper in center and keeps that sharpness much better across the frame.  Still has chromatic aberration near the edges at full zoom though.  EM5II fixes that for in camera JPEGS but the EM5 as you probably now already does not have chromatic aberration correction.

I fully understand your problem! I have similar doubts . However it is a subject that has been discussed hundred times in these forums. I would highly suggest to search in forums. recent example:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56219553

I was in a similar situation recently, deciding between an FZ1000 and the G7+14-140. I ended up going with the latter, mostly because I value the flexibility of a system. Even if the 14-140 is going to stay on the camera 90% of the time, I highly value being able to put a fast prime on it for indoor shooting, or adding a longer zoom if I'm out shooting wildlife.

Yannis1976 wrote:

I fully understand your problem! I have similar doubts . However it is a subject that has been discussed hundred times in these forums. I would highly suggest to search in forums. recent example:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56219553

-

I'm actually the one who started that thread

I thought I'd get way more insight from the m43 forum because off memory, the people over here seem way more seasoned photographers (if a bit crabby) and I'm already proven right by the replies I got so far.

highwave wrote:

Yannis1976 wrote:

I fully understand your problem! I have similar doubts . However it is a subject that has been discussed hundred times in these forums. I would highly suggest to search in forums. recent example:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56219553

-

I'm actually the one who started that thread

I thought I'd get way more insight from the m43 forum because off memory, the people over here seem way more seasoned photographers (if a bit crabby) and I'm already proven right by the replies I got so far.

Sorry!! Didn't notice!

Bob657 wrote:

It's an age old problem, how much quality is good enough? If you like the convenience of the FZ1000 but find it too large sometimes, maybe what you need is something like the LX100 to carry when the range isn't needed. As far as the 14-140 vs 14-150, most comparisons show they're pretty close in quality although both have been updated in the last year or so and may be somewhat better than the old models.

If you don't need the tele range, you may be happy with one of the shorter zooms such as the 12-32 lens or the 14-42 II Panny, both good kit lenses, or go pro with the12-35 2.8 Panny or 12-40 2.8 Oly.

Good luck!

Yeah, I love that LX100 but I honestly find myself repeatedly using the long reach of 200mm or more. So shorter lenses won't cut it. I have the E-M5  with primes right now and it's not going anywhere. I love that thing too much.

OpticsEngineer wrote:

I have the Oly 14-150 and the Oly 14-150 II. There is a quite a noticeable increase in image quality on the new lens. Slightly sharper in center and keeps that sharpness much better across the frame. Still has chromatic aberration near the edges at full zoom though. EM5II fixes that for in camera JPEGS but the EM5 as you probably now already does not have chromatic aberration correction.

I heard all that was done to the new 14-150 II is weather sealing and new glass coating. Other than that I thought they're optically the same.

rashid7 wrote:

I have had both of your cam's and the 14-140, old & new. I don't think there's a whole lot of difference. But in the end, i went w/ my gut, and gave the 1000 to my sister. Don't expect much difference, unless u r after 4k photo, and superb video. Or, alternatively, if u want to b wx-proof, get the 14-150ii

did you find the 14-140 II less bulky than the FZ1000?

Also, did you miss the extra reach and the extra 20MP cropping power of the FZ1000?

rashid7 wrote:

The FZ is quite the sexy piece of tech, esp vs the old EM5

The E-M5 isn't old it's just seasoned : )

Honestly I still struggle to justify upgrading it. That thing was so ahead of its time that after all these years,  it still packs a mean punch.

As far as I can say, no µFT camera equipped with any of the super zooms available (and I had/tested m.Zuiko 14-150 I, Lumix 14-140 I and II and even the great PannyLeica 14-150 for FT) have got what it takes to come really close to the performance of the FZ1000. This is one outstanding piece of technology and you really need good lenses on your µFT cameras to outperform it.
If I were you, I'd opt for the FZ1000 and familiarise myself with the size (after all it's really lightweight for its performance). For the prize of one of the super zooms you get a great camera that has got what it takes to shoot everything you want with a really impressive IQ: from Macro to high-speed action. Amazing!

highwave wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

The FZ is quite the sexy piece of tech, esp vs the old EM5

The E-M5 isn't old it's just seasoned : )

Honestly I still struggle to justify upgrading it. That thing was so ahead of its time that after all these years, it still packs a mean punch.

For me it's quite simple. If you don't mind the size of the FZ1000 then go for it! The advantages are much more many compared to an m4/3 system.

DonParrot wrote:

As far as I can say, no µFT camera equipped with any of the super zooms available (and I had/tested m.Zuiko 14-150 I, Lumix 14-140 I and II and even the great PannyLeica 14-150 for FT) have got what it takes to come really close to the performance of the FZ1000. This is one outstanding piece of technology and you really need good lenses on your µFT cameras to outperform it.
If I were you, I'd opt for the FZ1000 and familiarise myself with the size (after all it's really lightweight for its performance). For the prize of one of the super zooms you get a great camera that has got what it takes to shoot everything you want with a really impressive IQ: from Macro to high-speed action. Amazing!

I'm sort of coming to this conclusion. When I tested the 45-150mm Panasonic I was absolutely baffled at how much sharper it is over the 14-150mm Olympus wide open at 150mm. But then I tested the 45-150mm against the FZ1000 at 300mm equivalent and the FZ1000 actually did better. And so far I am very impressed by the IQ of the FZ1000. I just really miss the cool factor of rangefinders and retro SLRs and the compactness.

Oh well, I'll figure it out

rashid7 wrote:

highwave wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

As far as I can say, no µFT camera equipped with any of the super zooms available (and I had/tested m.Zuiko 14-150 I, Lumix 14-140 I and II and even the great PannyLeica 14-150 for FT) have got what it takes to come really close to the performance of the FZ1000. This is one outstanding piece of technology and you really need good lenses on your µFT cameras to outperform it.
If I were you, I'd opt for the FZ1000 and familiarise myself with the size (after all it's really lightweight for its performance). For the prize of one of the super zooms you get a great camera that has got what it takes to shoot everything you want with a really impressive IQ: from Macro to high-speed action. Amazing!

I'm sort of coming to this conclusion. When I tested the 45-150mm Panasonic I was absolutely baffled at how much sharper it is over the 14-150mm Olympus wide open at 150mm. But then I tested the 45-150mm against the FZ1000 at 300mm equivalent and the FZ1000 actually did better. And so far I am very impressed by the IQ of the FZ1000. I just really miss the cool factor of rangefinders and retro SLRs and the compactness.

Oh well, I'll figure it out

WHILE i like the FZ1000, i have to disagree w/ the above. I actually prefer my daytime landscapes w/ the GX7/14-140 vs the FZ1000. (I took a zillion pix of yosemite w/ both). However, seeing how youd have no effective mechanizm in the EM5 to counter Sschock, I'd go for the FZ. & SEXY tech

I don't think shutter shock was the limiting factor in the sharpness of the 14-150mm at the long end. Certainly it didn't limit the 45-150mm.

Even in DxO, it clearly shows that the 45-150mm is much sharper than the 14-140 II at 150mm. I don't think the 14-150 will outperform the 14-140 II from what I'm reading, so it really is likely that the FZ1000 is a sharper package overall.

highwave wrote:

Hi,

I'm in a bit of a crises in my photography gear right now and would love the brain storming from others.

I have an E-M5 with an assortment of primes. I use to have the Oly 14-150mm and was disappointed at its performance on the long end so I got rid of it and purchased the Panasonic 45-150mm. The 45-150mm was excellent at 150mm wide open. Fast forward, I really got frustrated with changing lenses while hiking or out taking photos and really missed the superzoom of the 14-150mm.

I recently went out and got the FZ1000 which is an all out superzoom. I'm very happy with its performance. It can't possibly match the E-M5 with primes but it's sharp enough for my use and I really loved the flexibility of the zoom range letting me compose my shot the way I want to. You really grab the shot you want which is in my opinion, the reason why you buy a camera.

However it's not all good. The FZ1000 is a monster in size. I put it in my sling-bag and it swallows space. I really miss the portability of the E-M5+20mm and if I ever needed the zoom, I'd pack that separately which considerably saves space. So now I'm having second thoughts about using the 14-140mm Panasonic which is said to be better than the Olympus 14-150mm.

So anyone out there compared the Panasonic 14-140mm II to the FZ1000 on a M43 body? Any ideas in general or reflections? All discussions welcome here

Also, any questions you have on the FZ1000 are welcome so long as I have it

Please no bashing. Gear is gear. Respect the humans behind them.

Would you question be simply built on 2 major factors?

1) How good would be 14-140 M2 on EM5 or (might be later on newer M43 body)? More further discussion would be how much better would FZ1000 be (if yes) over your M43 setup?

There had been complaints on 14-140 M2 on SS or abnormal jittering in video because of over sensitive OIS. But like many members I am one of the happy user proud to have it, not on the absolute IQ but its over performance and versatility. Our good friend Mebpeguin had recently posted a few excellent samples from this lens (G7 +14-140M2). You might compare it for your judgement. As I saw quite many good images from FZ1000, I would not rule out its IQ, but IMHO likely be similar to what 14-140M2 could deliver. Never under estimate that IBIS power of EM5 which could allow extra stabilization to equalize majority of benefit from the fast speed of FZ1000's lens. Both are respectable gears.

It is only half of the answer and moving on...

2) What would be the size and weight you prefer? FZ1000 or EM5 + 14-140M2? How about put it on EM10 or EM10.2, of a smaller GX8.2 or larger GM5.2 in future?

I wish the above could help you to find a way out easier.