• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Panasonic FZ1000 Review... (1 Viewer)

I think a lot of the "bridge" cameras do that and have slightly different ways and means of performing the cropping. I use it a lot on my FZ200 and its main advantage is that you can better see if your subject is in focus and how good it looks at the time of the shot rather than later, when you might discover its not so good.
 
Last edited:
I had a chance to handle an FZ1000 in our local camera shop( we still have ONE in an area aproaching two million people) today. Very nice, love the focus ring. It is no doubt a better overall camera than my FZ200. I wont be buying one unfortunately. I got the FZ200 as a record camera for birds. The 1000 is heavier bigger in fact its not a lot smaller than a 5300 with the kit lens and it dosen't have the reach 400mm vs 600mm. It is a very impressive outfit though.
Steve
 
I've been giving this camera some ''real'' thought, I currently have a 3 year old, 30x optical Sony HX100V, which I've been ''mostly'' happy with. The Lumix FZ1000 is stated in the spec as having a 1''sensor (4x the surface area of my current sensor...and 25% more pixcels, 20mp to my 16mp). The question for me is...would the increased spec on the Lumix, compensate for the reduced ''reach'' on this model, 16x, as opposed to my 30x? Cheers
 
Last edited:
Ken,
I think by the end of the day you have to answer that question for yourself. If you often find that your pictures need a lot of crop, then probably not. If you often find that you use high iso settings and the images look crap for that reason, then most likely yes.

If you have not used a pana camera in the past, there is a jpg-only-option of only saving a smaller central part of the frame which produces seemingly higher reach. The advantage of doing that crop pre shooting compared to post is that the focusing and probably also the metering is improved.

Having seen your propensity for video, you should also consider the 4k video option - screen grabs from that should be about 8mpix.

Niels
 
Thanks Niels, I tend to use ''idiot mode'', because often when opportunity presents, it's a case of only having enough time to point...attempt to get subject in focus through the EVF (pre-full shutter release), and particularly with a moving target, crisp imagery might only be after a one-in-three attempt, before subject disappears behind trees, as a lot of my shots are taken from the house (although not exclusively), and further restricted by the 45 degree opening of my Health and Safety windows, where I ''try'' not to shoot through glass.

Yes I'm very much aware of the 8mp grab facility (and that is the main attraction..along with the faster focusing).

I think I'll have to ''showroom-test'' it (shame you can't take it into the field :-C).

The crop pre-shot option sounds good! mmm a lot to think about. cheers :t:
 
I had the opportunity to handle the FZ1000 at the Bird Fair on Friday and found that photos don't really prepare you for the size of the thing - it is a chunky great beast! It felt quite unwieldy and dwarfed my G3. I'm not convinced I'd like to haul such a great lump around. In an ideal world I'd have my G3 with the 100-300 lens permanently attached and one of the smaller Panasonics (LX7?GM1?), as a back up for scenery/flowers/insects. The big advantage of the beast, though, seems to be the ability to 'grab' decent stills from video footage which could prove extremely useful. Shame it hasn't a little more reach, but I quail at the thought how big it'd have to be to do so!
 
Last edited:
Thanks John.
That ability to grab video also is found in the GH4 now, and I would hope that some of the improvements of that camera makes it into a G-series camera before too long.

Niels
 
I, too, handled one of these ‘beasts’ at Birdfair. I, too, found it chunky but, strangely, not heavy. Unwieldy ? I’m not sure. That would depend on how well I familiarised myself with it, after using it for a while in the field. Certainly, there was a profusion of buttons in different places from those on my FZ-150; and some of these seemed inordinately small and in inconvenient/awkward places.

What manufacturers sometimes lose sight of is the desirability for ease-of-use and speed-of-use, when under ‘pressure’ to obtain a good shot.

The comparison I checked was the ‘zoom figure’ at 5M, using the EOZ (or internal cropping), which is my usual operating setting:

FZ-150 37.5x
FZ-1000 32x

Is this significant ? (It’s well over 10% difference.) I think it may be and am, thus, hanging fire. I believe a replacement for the FZ-200 must be due soon and will wait for this, or for favourable reviews of the 1000 after use on birds and smaller creatures in the field by members.
 
The comparison I checked was the ‘zoom figure’ at 5M, using the EOZ (or internal cropping), which is my usual operating setting:

FZ-150 37.5x
FZ-1000 32x

Is this significant ? (It’s well over 10% difference.) I think it may be and am, thus, hanging fire. I believe a replacement for the FZ-200 must be due soon and will wait for this, or for favourable reviews of the 1000 after use on birds and smaller creatures in the field by members.

What would those number translate into in equivalent reach?

Niels
 
What would those number translate into in equivalent reach?

Niels

I'm sorry, Niels, that means nothing to me ! I'm thinking in binocular/telescope terms of optical magnification- if that's how it's expressed semi-photographically.

I am NOT a photographer; I just take photos.

Perhaps someone else can 'translate'.
 
They're both 25mm at the wide end, so...

FZ150 (37.5 * 25) = 937.5mm
FZ1000 (32 * 25) = 800mm

(About 3* more zoom (reach) with the FZ150 in Binocular terms)

I have to say that I'm still quite happy with my FZ150. The FZ1000 looked interesting, but weight and size don't fit with how I use a camera; I just go for walks and take pics of what interests me, I don't use a tripod or sit in hides
 
I should add that the Panasonic rep I spoke to assured me that the 1.7x converter will fit onto the FZ1000 which would bump it up to 680mm (although making it very 'front heavy').
 
They're both 25mm at the wide end, so...

FZ150 (37.5 * 25) = 937.5mm
FZ1000 (32 * 25) = 800mm

(About 3* more zoom (reach) with the FZ150 in Binocular terms)

I have to say that I'm still quite happy with my FZ150. The FZ1000 looked interesting, but weight and size don't fit with how I use a camera; I just go for walks and take pics of what interests me, I don't use a tripod or sit in hides

ChrisK, thanks for doing that; I did not realize they both started at the same place in wide end.

firstreesjohn: what Chris alluded to is that in binocular terms, 1x corresponds roughly to 50 mm in the above calculations. That means that in binocular terms, the reach is best expressed as
FZ150 = 18.7x
FZ1000 = 16x

Niels
 
Last edited:
1x corresponds roughly to 50 mm in the above calculations. That means that in binocular terms, the reach is best expressed as
FZ150 = 16x
FZ1000 = 18.7x

Thanks, Niels.

But I'm even more confused, now. (It doesn't take much, at the mo, as I'm suffering from mild concussion.)

Isn't it the other way around ?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top