• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Macro photography - Panasonic fz1000 (1 Viewer)

frootz

Well-known member
Hello,

I am looking at buying a Bridge or Compact camera for macro nature photography as the primary use.

However, it would be great if the camera could be a good all-rounder for birds and mammals too.

I am a complete novice to photography so am not looking to go for a DSLR.
I am trying to keep the choice as simple as possible at this stage so I don't get too bogged down with the decision making before taking a photo! :)

I read this article on Macro cameras: https://expertphotography.com/best-macro-photography-camera/

And, have looked across the forum for information.

And, it would seem a good answer/ choice for this would be the Panasonic fz1000?

Does anyone know if the Panasonic fz1000 is better for macro photos than the ones mentioned in the article above? Sorry if the answer is obvious based on the comparative specifications!

Also, does anyone know of any good tutorials or books on macro nature photography they would recommend?

Many thanks if you take the time to respond,

Emma
 

StuartReeves

Local rarity
I have a FZ1000 which I use as a general birds/wildlife walkabout camera. I'm not sure it counts as a true macro camera but the close focus is good enough to get reasonable photographs of e.g. moths & butterflies. Of the cameras in that article, the FZ1000 would be most comparable with the Sony RX10.
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
I used to have an old small sensor superzoom from Panasonic. One of the things I liked about that camera that I hope still is present in its much younger sibling (i.e., the FZ1000) was the ability to focus close even at full zoom setting, allowing for taking photos of e.g., butterflies without spooking them. Most other superzooms back then would only focus close at wide angle setting of the lens.

A true macro lens (for example with a dSLR) will give you a thinner depth of field but the cost is that you need to be much closer to the object.

For the use you describe I would also look for the largest sensor available rather than the longest zoom.

Niels
 

rob lee

Well-known member
I used to have a Canon SX50, basically a smaller sensor version of the Panasonic. I regularly used it for macro with the Raynox DCR 250. Image quality could be awesome. The Raynox has a fixed focal distance of about 100mm, so with it fitted to the camera you could use the whole zoom range & still focus at c100mm from the front of the lens, brilliant for macro shots of small stuff. If you`ve been thinking of getting one do so, well worth the money. To answer the original posters question I would say go for the FZ1000 & get the Raynox as well. Heres a couple of sample photos, both micro moths c 4mm long
 

Attachments

  • 0005 Micropterix calthella 4.JPG
    0005 Micropterix calthella 4.JPG
    328.9 KB · Views: 45
  • 0351 Phyllonorycter lautella.JPG
    0351 Phyllonorycter lautella.JPG
    304.1 KB · Views: 54

SanAngelo

Well-known member
...... If you`ve been thinking of getting one do so, well worth the money.

Thank You so much for the review and photos, wasn't sure if it was a gimmicky add-on or a viable tool.

I really like the pani but I always want a little more detail.

Here's a photo taken @ 146mm, if I had the Raynox 250 you think it would have sharpened up?
 

Attachments

  • Unkn.jpg
    Unkn.jpg
    252.7 KB · Views: 43

rob lee

Well-known member
"Here's a photo taken @ 146mm, if I had the Raynox 250 you think it would have sharpened up?"
Probably not, but hard to say for sure as there are a lot of variables involved. With the Raynox on you would have had to have been within the 100mm ish range & coupled with the increased magnification both would have provided more detail. Assuming correct focus, sharpness would be more affected by any movement. How do you shoot, on a tripod, RAW ? i use both as a rule
 

SanAngelo

Well-known member
Understand the variables, sharpened was a poor choice of words, I meant more detail from the magnification.

I shoot in jpeg.

I rarely use a tripod.

Until recently I've always had the camera on a monopod. It was a fixed feature, camera and hiking stick, that I abused. I cracked the bottom of the camera where the quick release plate screws in. Not only a bad crack, which extends from the screw hole back and up to the monitor's recess, but the abuse also loosened the screw nut inside the body of the camera.

The FZ1000 does not have quick access to the battery compartment when mounted with a quick release plate. The work around was an off-set mounting plate. This plate allowed the battery door to open without removing the quick release plate.

I haven't figured out what I'm gonna do. I fixed the cracks with JB Weld but before I can use the monopod I would have to secure the off-set plate to the screw hole/nut in some fashion similar to the JB Weld. The off-set plate needs to be permanently and securely fixed to the bottom of the camera due to the loose screw hole/nut. I don't have an aversion to any of this, I'm just not sure JB Weld is up to the task.

I've been shopping for cameras......but I like the pani.

I order the Raynox 250, it'll be here next week.
 

rob lee

Well-known member
Yes you`d definitely be seeing more detail. I feel your pain with the camera issues, been there etc. I think if you really want to get the most out of your images then you need to start shooting RAW. I did jpeg only for years until I finally got a camera that could shoot raw & even then it was quite a while before I tried it out, but when I did the extra detail captured & the ability to control highlights and shadows better was well worth the effort, and to be honest it does`nt take me that much longer to process images than it did with jpeg
 

nikonmike

Well-known member
Thank You so much for the review and photos, wasn't sure if it was a gimmicky add-on or a viable tool.

I really like the pani but I always want a little more detail.

Here's a photo taken @ 146mm, if I had the Raynox 250 you think it would have sharpened up?

I only had the jpeg to work with but a bit more PP and i think the image you have could be improved.
 

Attachments

  • Unkn.jpg
    Unkn.jpg
    215.8 KB · Views: 37

SanAngelo

Well-known member
I only had the jpeg to work with but a bit more PP and i think the image you have could be improved.

Sweet....wish you were around a couple years ago, I posted a photo of two Pileated Woodpeckers in some subforum asking for help making the colors bounce. The blacks were kinda flat, never got 'em to glisten like you did on this bug shot.

Never took the time to clean up post imagery; adj the lighting and resize the photo, nothing more. Actually, I've never learned to do more. Wouldn't mind a little school call, if you could spare the time for a pointer or two?

Workin' with RAW is now on my To Do List.....you'd think with this 'rona goin' around I'd be jumpin' on things to do, but it's just not so.
 

nikonmike

Well-known member
Sweet....wish you were around a couple years ago, I posted a photo of two Pileated Woodpeckers in some subforum asking for help making the colors bounce. The blacks were kinda flat, never got 'em to glisten like you did on this bug shot.

Never took the time to clean up post imagery; adj the lighting and resize the photo, nothing more. Actually, I've never learned to do more. Wouldn't mind a little school call, if you could spare the time for a pointer or two?

Workin' with RAW is now on my To Do List.....you'd think with this 'rona goin' around I'd be jumpin' on things to do, but it's just not so.

I have a rather unorthodox way of PPing. i use photoshop but normally start by loading my image into adobe camera raw(even if its a jpeg) and hitting auto then making slight slider adjustments untill i get what i want
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
For comparison, I use ACDSee, and I have more or less the same workflow whether I am using RAW or once in a blue moon, jpg to start from.

Niels
 

Stanga

Member
United Kingdom
I have used the FZ1000, which I upgraded last year to the FZ1000 II. It is great for macro photography, once you add the right bits to it. One of them is the Exakta 10X HD achromatic macro lens in 62mm or larger screw thread. I use a 72m with a 62mm to 72mm step up converter. You can of course try any other type of macro lens fitted to the front of the FZ1000, but I stuck to the Exakta because the optical quality is there to see in each shot taken.
The 58mm version is more common on the likes of ebay, so you would need a 62mm to 58mm step down converter if you can only lay your hands on that one.
 

THE_FERN

Well-known member
I have the FZ300 and use a Raynox 150 which work for me.
Worth noting that you'll probably want the lower magnification Raynox [like 150 here] if you're photographing larger insects. This gives you a greater working distance and allows you to get more of the animal in frame. The Phyllonorycter lautella pic above is pretty awesome, but that's quite a small moth [read "normal sized insect"]. You can stack Raynox lenses: some people do...

The other thing that'll help is in-camera focus stacking. I've no idea if the Panny supports this but many similar machines do now. This is a great boon, especially if you're photographing really small stuff [where depth of field is necessarily shallow].
 

Stanga

Member
United Kingdom
The FZ330 has focus stacking. But it's based on frames taken from a 4K clip. It's not as flexible to use, and detailed as focus stacking, which is available on the FZ1000 II.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top