• 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... (2 Viewers)

firstreesjohn said:
..........I use Photoshop Elements 7.0 in a basic way, to sharpen and enhance/improve contrast, highlights and shadows.

Here's another Nuthatch, from the same day as the last.
Click to expand...

Looks like the bird moved its head just a little while you took the picture. The rest is again excellently sharp, and I like the composition.

When you say you now have a 32x magnification, does that mean at full resolution, or do you reduce to 8 MP or whatever for that?

Finally, would you mind posting originals of the first nuthatch and of the fungi/lichens to allow comparing how much the improvements bring. I'm asking because I try to stay away from such alterations simply for the reason of time spent. So I might need some convincing one way or another.
 
I probably spend no more than a minute 'freshening up' each photo. Often, I will take hundreds of shots; saving fewer than, say, ten.

I reduce (that internal cropping thing) to, usually, 5MP, which gives the 32x. If quality pics are required then, of course, I use higher res.

Here is what was requested.
 

Attachments

  • 331smpaint.jpg
    331smpaint.jpg
    645.4 KB · Views: 436
  • 104smpaint.jpg
    104smpaint.jpg
    559.7 KB · Views: 405
  • 479smpaint.jpg
    479smpaint.jpg
    539.2 KB · Views: 508
Last edited:
firstreesjohn said:
Thank you, Swissboy !

The equivalent (binocular) magnification of the FZ-150 at my usual zoom setting was 37.5x; the FZ-1000, 32x.

The fact that the minimum shooting distance is now 1m may now prove to be an advantage, for the reasons stated. I think the reduced 'magnification' at a distance may not prove as much of a drawback as I thought: the quality of the (unimproved) shot seems to be higher and 'take' Photoshop better, too.

I use Photoshop Elements 7.0 in a basic way, to sharpen and enhance/improve contrast, highlights and shadows.

Here's another Nuthatch, from the same day as the last.
Click to expand...

Those are great bird shots, plus the close ups are excellent as well. The fungus is outstanding. I had the FZ150 and still have the FZ200, with the macro setting I could never get closer at full zoom than one metre, which is the same as the FZ1000. I'm curious as to how you achieved 18" distance on your macro shots with the FZ150? That wasn't possible with any of my cameras and in fact the manual states that 1 metre is the closest you can get. Were you using an add on lens? I have the Canon 500d, which approximately halves the one metre distance, which would be about 18".
 
scodgerott said:
Those are great bird shots . . . The fungus is outstanding . . . I'm curious as to how you achieved 18" distance on your macro shots with the FZ150?
Click to expand...

Thank you, scodgerott !

I could easily be mistaken ! It happens more frequently these days. Just tried it (with the FZ-150)- and can only get to 1m.
 
firstreesjohn said:
Thank you, scodgerott !

I could easily be mistaken ! It happens more frequently these days. Just tried it (with the FZ-150)- and can only get to 1m.
Click to expand...

I had also been convinced that I'd get larger magnification when getting closer at less zoom. But trying it now, it's also about that 1m limit. At no zoom, one gets much closer but ends up with less magnification. Maybe it was different with earlier FZ models, but while I still have some around, their batteries are uncharged for a quick test. Had to change the battery in the FZ150 too.
 
firstreesjohn said:
.....
I reduce (that internal cropping thing) to, usually, 5MP, which gives the 32x. If quality pics are required then, of course, I use higher res.

Here is what was requested.
Click to expand...

Most convincing results! Thanks for this. I may have to get into this, then.
 
One of the features of the FZ-50 (my first bridge camera) I most missed was the manual focus on the lens. This, of course, is so useful in certain wildlife shots, when vegetation partially obscures a creature and makes focussing difficult/impossible.

This re-appears on the FZ-1000, but with 'bells on'. Although two quick flicks of a switch/lever/button are required to change to this, with minimal practice, this can be effected very quickly.

When the focussing ring (on the lens) is rotated, the area is highlighted (called 'peaking' in the manual). In default setting, this throws a most attractive (!) turquoise 'halo' around the focussed bits. The colour can, if desired, be changed, by altering the 'detect level'. I think it's easier to understand than it sounds.

The more I use this camera, the more I like and admire it. This time, I believe, Panasonic have (at last !) listened to their customers- at a price.
 
firstreesjohn said:
One of the features of the FZ-50 (my first bridge camera) I most missed was the manual focus on the lens. This, of course, is so useful in certain wildlife shots, when vegetation partially obscures a creature and makes focussing difficult/impossible.

This re-appears on the FZ-1000, but with 'bells on'. Although two quick flicks of a switch/lever/button are required to change to this, with minimal practice, this can be effected very quickly.

When the focussing ring (on the lens) is rotated, the area is highlighted (called 'peaking' in the manual). In default setting, this throws a most attractive (!) turquoise 'halo' around the focussed bits. The colour can, if desired, be changed, by altering the 'detect level'. I think it's easier to understand than it sounds.

The more I use this camera, the more I like and admire it. This time, I believe, Panasonic have (at last !) listened to their customers- at a price.
Click to expand...

The focus peaking feature is a really nice thing to have. I like it much better than the "manual focus assist" function, which magnifies up the centre portion of the screen to help you see the focus better. Personally I find that feature a bit distracting, especially at long zoom levels. My biggest gripe with the FZ1000 and it also applies to the FZ100/150 and 200 is the retracting of the lens when you review your images for more than about 10 seconds. I don't know why they think that's a good idea. Maybe some people like it, but I haven't heard of any and they could at least give us the option of having it on or off. That way everyone would be happy.

The other feature I quite like in the macro settings is the Macro zoom, where you can get to within 3cm at wide angle then zoom 3x to get a quite big image. Its digital, but stills looks pretty good in my opinion. You can see a comparison below. One shot taken at one metre, the second shot at 3cm. Its useful for fairly static subjects and not so useful for things that will fly away or sting you if you get so close.
 

Attachments

  • Flower1.JPG
    Flower1.JPG
    194.4 KB · Views: 440
  • Flower2.JPG
    Flower2.JPG
    220.9 KB · Views: 416
Astonishing flash !

I had no idea that the flash would be so much more powerful.

The LH shot is without; the RH, with.

The Church is at Cley (not just known for its birds) and is quite a large area to illuminate. They were taken today, with no sun outside. The only editing: resizing.
 

Attachments

  • 034sm2.jpg
    034sm2.jpg
    382.3 KB · Views: 483
  • 032sm2.jpg
    032sm2.jpg
    390.1 KB · Views: 510
firstreesjohn said:
I had no idea that the flash would be so much more powerful.

The LH shot is without; the RH, with.

The Church is at Cley (not just known for its birds) and is quite a large area to illuminate. They were taken today, with no sun outside. The only editing: resizing.
Click to expand...

That's impressive illumination. I don't think I've used the flash as yet. Maybe once, just to make sure it worked, but not in anger, so to speak. Its good to know that its effective. I find it handy to have t on the top of the camera just in case you need it. My wife's Olympus comes with a flash, but you have to put in into the hot shoe when you want its light.
 
Sometimes olympus goes overboard with making things small ;)

I am still looking forward to reading reviews of the 300 mm and the 1,4x TC for the m4/3 system that they are expected to bring out soon.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
Sometimes olympus goes overboard with making things small ;)

I am still looking forward to reading reviews of the 300 mm and the 1,4x TC for the m4/3 system that they are expected to bring out soon.

Niels
Click to expand...

That will be interesting to see, as the M43 are a bit limited in long lenses at the moment, so a 1.4x TC would help in that regard.
 
I saw a little review of the 1.4x when used with the 40-150mm pro lens. Unfortunately, it protrudes up into the end of the lens, and therefore cannot be used together with e.g., the pana 100-300mm (and I do not know if that one is sharp enough anyway).

Niels
 
Any recent low light shots to share? I'm looking to upgrade from my Panasonic fz62 and the low light performance/400mm range are the only things making me hesitate...
 
Have to say that looks pretty impressive, was that at full zoom (400mm) or did you use izoom etc to increase the range?
 
I have been using the 4K video quite a bit of late and then extracting 8mp stills off the video. The quality is very good in most cases and sometimes better than a similar shot taken using the normal process. Here are some examples. They were originally in the 3.5-4.5mb size, but I'm not sure how good they will look at the reduced sizes this forum requires. In their original size they look as good as any "normal" still shot.
 

Attachments

  • Fantail.JPG
    Fantail.JPG
    246.7 KB · Views: 524
  • Robin.JPG
    Robin.JPG
    274 KB · Views: 678
  • Thornbill.JPG
    Thornbill.JPG
    431.7 KB · Views: 499
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.

Similar threads

yarrellii
Allbinos Review of the Vortex Crossfire HD 10x42
Replies
2
Views
1K
qwerty5
qwerty5
has530
SVBONY SA205 Review
Replies
3
Views
467
has530
has530
C
AX Visio: is it really as bad as some reviewers claim??
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
7K
Canip
C
I
Analysis Paralysis- Please help me choose!
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
Patudo
P
V
DDOptics binoculars for birdwatching
Replies
15
Views
2K
exup
E

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top