Jump to content

Lumix DMC-FZ1000


Recommended Posts

Panasonic FZ1000 camera announced, could be the next V-Lux model | Leica News & Rumors

 

I have Leica V-lux4 and am satisfied but V-lux5 seems to be better..

 

Panasonic Leica FZ1000, sells soon..

 

Tienda de fotografia e imagen digital con camaras digitales y accesorios

 

Leica V-lux5 in August or September.

 

Which is his advice, to wait to V-lux5 or to buy already Panasonic/Leica FZ1000...

 

Both are made by Panasonic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I took trading stock to my dealer today and came out of the store with a new FZ1000. It didn't take me five minutes to decide on the purchase. After upgrading Adobe DNG to enable quick conversion of RAW files,and setting the camera to my preferences, I took 10 frames at ISO 200 and examined the TIFFs in PSE11. I can see already that I will have no complaints about image quality produced by the 20.1MP 1" sensor, Venus engine and Leica DC Vario-Elmarit f2.8-4 25-400mm (equiv.) lens at reasonable ISOs. This machine is going to get a lot of use in my hands. I think Leica would be making a mistake not to turn out a re-badged version.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as a mixed bag. The bigger sensor will no doubt inprove IQ and low light performance, but to keep the package around the same size as the V-Lux4 they are using a zoom with less range in the tele end (25-400 equivalent vs 25-600 equivalent). I use the long end of the zoom so much that I doubt I'll trade up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use the long end of the zoom so much that I doubt I'll trade up.

 

I am interested. I would like the improved IQ and usually 400 is long enough for what I shoot. I think though, if the D-Lux 7 were to come with a 1 inch sensor I would want that more than replacing my V-Lux 4.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I side with Stuart. The V-lux4 with its zoom range is very handy. 400mm is a lot but when you have the option of going up to 600mm when needed is just to good to pass up. IQ would be the only reason I would trade up but it would have to be substantial to offset the loss in focal length.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligent zoom is different from digital zoom, Panasonic says in the instruction book. IZ allows you to extend the 400mm max zoom to 800 or 1200 with minimum loss of quality, the amount of extension depending on how much you reduce resolution. I had not anticipated using this feature, but I thought I'd give it a try for purposes of this discussion. I took three shots. The first was with the normal full 20.1MP JPEG quality at full extension, the second with IZ set at medium JPEG (about 10MP) and an indicated 800mm and the third with IZ set at medium JPEG at about 1200mm. I was quite surprised at the results. I am providing a link to my Flickr photostream.The shots are the first three (of the yard statuette):

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/28918262@N08/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've become a believer in the Intelligent Zoom feature. I took this shot of a ruby-throated female hummer with the IZ set to a resolution of medium (10MP, 1/2 the native resolution), effective focal length of 1124, ISO 400. The image is slightly cropped, as well.

 

14762502869_4bbc7816b3_z.jpgHumy1-web by tombarry975, on Flickr

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

Thank you for providing the Flickr link - I too am surprised at the quality of the IZ images, especially at 1124 mm focal length at ISO400. I was expecting them to be muddy, noisy, and fuzzy but they are pretty crisp and clean.

 

Pete.

 

 

Edit: cross-posted with Tom and manoleica.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as a mixed bag. The bigger sensor will no doubt inprove IQ and low light performance, but to keep the package around the same size as the V-Lux4 they are using a zoom with less range in the tele end (25-400 equivalent vs 25-600 equivalent). I use the long end of the zoom so much that I doubt I'll trade up.

 

 

I wonder what's the pixel pitch of the two cameras in question?

Then using the actual focal lengths we could compute which camera has higher resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a discussion on DPReview about a month ago, but pixel pitch isn't mentioned...

Re: Pixel size difference: FZ1000 vs FZ200

In reply to dobbre, 1 month ago

 

dobbre wrote:

 

Having FZ200 for almost 2 years now with few periods of heavy usage I've come to love it and if FZ1000 is same or better in terms of handling, organisation of menus/buttons and potential for tweaking it to ones preference, I will be more than satisfied with FZ1000. Only thing that bothers me with FZ200 are its low light possibilities and I'm sure that FZ1000 is much better than FZ200 in that area.

 

Yes, it will be much better. At least 2 stops from my initial image inspections. From the website: Digital camera Data Base: Sensor compare.

 

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Pixel size is: 5.76 µm²

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Pixel size is: 2.37 µm²

Pixel area difference: 3.39 µm² larger (143%)

A pixel on Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 sensor is approx. 143% bigger than a pixel on Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200.

 

A larger pixel gathers more light per exposure with less electronic gain up. Therefore reducing noise, increasing dynamic range and maintaining more detail. So yes, at ISO 800, you would have an image as good as or better then the FZ200 at 200 ISO. This can be visually seen even with default setting JPEGs using Imaging Resources Comparometer . Select the FZ1000 at ISO 800 in one column and the FZ200 at 200 ISO in the other column The differences are obvious. I recommend the still life images at the bottom of the thumbnail lists. The ones with the fabrics, bottles, crayons and colored threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wonder if a screw-on converter lens to effect a x1.4 or more effective magnification might be better than using digital magnification. Losing the inevitable aperture reduction but still with the option to use RAW rather than jpeg whereas most digital magnification systems only use jpeg format,

 

Anyone tried this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...