I think I was falling under the spell of some wishful thinking as far as an
all-in-one. As I told Chris and Philippe, I’m not sure what I want a new kit
for, so maybe I’ll likely defer the decision until I know more. Thanks so much
for the information, put into proper perspective.
--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Nov 25, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/25/2014 11:20 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>> Anyone out there sporting a Lumix DMC-FZ1000? It looks like a pretty nifty
>> all-in-one. I read the DP Review, but as Moose has shown us numerous times,
>> those must be read with a very critical eye, and my eyes ain’t so critical
>> when it comes to the all-in-one.
>>
>> When we go back to the UK this spring, I do not—DO NOT—intend on carrying a
>> full kit.
>
> Obviously, I can only speak to my own reactions/opinions. This camera seems
> neither fish nor fowl to me, which might make it perfect for you.
>
> A few things that jumped out for me in a rather cursory look at the review:
>
> "The Lumix DMC-FZ1000 is a chunky superzoom camera that is roughly the same
> size as a DSLR with a kit lens attached." "The body size is essentially a
> match for a mid-level DSLR" "The FZ1000 is indeed a large camera, but is easy
> to hold and operate."
>
> It's much larger and heavier than any camera lens combination I carry for
> casual use. Although a wildly different shape, it's about as large, and
> insignificantly heavier than, the largest I ever carry, E-M5 or GX7 with
> 75-300 lens.
>
> There is no way I can see to carry it but around my neck or in a rather large
> bag. I guess I can't see enough advantage in the all-in-one aspect to out
> weigh size, weight and flexibility in carrying.
>
> As one of many examples, a GM5 with 12-32 kit lens fits in a moderate size
> jacket pocket or belt bag. The 45-150 lens, likewise, so I can wander around
> without anything around my neck or on my shoulder, yet have a 24-300 mm focal
> range.
>
> "... it's a bit soft at wide-angle (25mm equiv.)" "... its maximum aperture
> rapidly drops from F2.8 towards F4.0 as you zoom in"
>
> So ... not great at WA, and not a darn thing I can do about it if it turns
> out to be a problem but buy a different camera. Unfortunately, tests don't
> usually show FL vs. fastest aperture. That DPR felt it worth mentioning, may
> mean it's worse with this lens than most. So f2.8 becomes f4 - as soon as it
> starts to get sharper.
>
> "While image quality is close to that of interchangeable lens cameras at
> their base ISOs, the FZ1000 falls behind relatively quickly due to its
> smaller sensor."
>
> It seems to me that any given time, there has been a sweet spot for sensor
> size, for all but the most demanding, huge display uses. I feel that I've
> pretty much followed that spot, from FF 5D, through APS-C 60D to µ4/3,
> starting with the E-M5. Although it was possible to make stunningly high IQ
> prints from the earlier Pen sensors at low ISOs (I have a 15x20" Ctein print
> that would knock your socks off.), the later gen of sensor systems upped the
> ante considerably, especially at higher ISOs.
>
> 1" may be the next size where that will happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
> Tedious, but very useful, is to download Raw files from the test sites and
> process them oneself. If FZ1000 image files make you happy, fine. If not, you
> will just be frustrated when you get home. Clunky as they are, the
> standardized test subjects are really useful for comparing various aspects of
> EQ on different cameras.
>
> The JPEG images on screen in the tests don't show what may be achieved in
> post with the right tools and skills. Raw files from some cameras simply
> differ in how well they react to NR, deconvolution, etc., as well as
> different Raw converters.
>
> FZ1000 - 1" = 13.2 x 8.8 mm
> µ4/3 - 4/3" = 17.3 x 13
> APS-C = 23.6 x 15.6
>
> You may not have used camerasize.com, particularly their wonderful new
> ability to compare several cameras at once - with one's choice of lenses!
> <http://j.mp/1vdfobB>
>
> Hover your mouse over a camera to see size/weight details. It doesn't show
> sensor size nor eq. focal lengths. The compact Oly and Panny lenses are 14-42
> = 28-84, the tiny Panny 12-32 = 24-64 and the Fuji 'compact', but much larger
> & heavier, 16-50 = 24-75. I seem to recall that you don't think you would be
> happy without a viewfinder, so I've only included a couple of cameras without
> that I like. Note that the tiny GM5 has a VF, and a real control wheel.
>
> Anyway, it's a great tool for camera/lens comparisons. One thing I've done
> that's worked pretty well most of the time is to imagine (close your eyes)
> using the camera and lens(es) to take the kind of shots I like in places I
> expect to be. This little exercise has saved me from some real potential
> mistakes.
>
> I included the Fuji based on Philippe and Chris's recommendations. I know
> next to nothing about the Fujis. If I were in the market, I'm sure I'd be
> looking closely at them, but I'm happy with what I'm using and have somehow
> built up quite a lens investment there.
>
> I guess I just can't imagine having a fixed lens camera as my main one. This
> review doesn't test close-up capabilities, for example. I'll bet closest
> focus is at WA and at the longer focal lengths, it's not very good. For me,
> that would mean carrying a close-up lens, a far less ideal, more expensive
> and heavier option* than an extension tube. In my case, I also have the light
> 60/2.8, 2:1 Macro, which is fabulous.
>
> Then, what about the fun stuff? I recently just couldn't resist the siren
> call of the Oly 9/8.0 semi-fisheye. I couldn't see carrying around a
> relatively expensive, heavy fisheye like Nathan recently bought for the
> relatively few appropriate subjects I run into. This thing is light, tiny,
> cheap - and fun.
>
> G.A.S. Moose
>
> * Single elements ones aren't good. Achromats are heavy and expensive. Now, I
> already have a 62 mm Nikon 5T, but I'll bet you don't. :-)
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|