Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000

Cameralabs just posted a new FZ1000 preliminary review.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

chadley_chad

I got rid of the RX10 due to its size and weight ... But I think I can reassess this decision for a 400mm range!

Jun 13, 2014permalink

DWM

This camera is huge! What exactly is the advantage of a 1" sensor again? I'd rather have a D5300 and a kit zoom. Or a Nikon 1 and 10-100mm if small size was important.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

chadley_chad

Try getting a D5300 with 24-400mm lens at this price and size!

Jun 13, 2014permalink

http://camerasize.com/compact/#556,347.35,347.34,ha,t

D5300 = no 4k video and even worse autofocusing.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

Biro

Come to think of it, is the FZ1000 that smaller than my G5 with the 100-300mm (200-600mm equivalent) mounted on it? No 4K video but many photographers aren't concerned about that.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

Impulses

It's probably smaller, might even be smaller than a G5 with the smallest teles (e.g. new 14-140, 45-150)... The FZ1000 body looks chunky but that integrated lens looks pretty small. Haven't compared measurements, hopefully the camerasize site puts it up and saves us the trouble.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

Biro

It looks like Camera Size has come through for us. Here' s a comparison between the FZ1000 and the G5 with the 100-300 and the G5 with the 14-140:

You're right Impulses, the FZ1000 is smaller than both, although it's close to the G5 with the 14-140 on it.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

Michael_13

Nikon1&10-100 is not really smaller and even heavier:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#556,494,544.42,ha,t

Jun 16, 2014permalink

fastprime

The sample gallery is very impressive. The skin tones of the children in particular look perfect to m eye!

Jun 13, 2014permalink

chillgreg

My first 4 words upon seeing the pic at top:

Fock me, that's HUGE!!!

;)

Jun 13, 2014permalink

jlchen

Seems to be a winner to me as well. Especially it is 1/3 cheaper than the RX10.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

Eigenmeat

PRe-ordered!!! Most exciting camera in years for me!!
Not everyone want to shuffle multiple lens with DSLR and mirrorless.
And I am sure the FZ1000 lens will run circles around a DSLR superzoom lens.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

John Clyde

Is it fair to compare a Bridge Camera to a DSLR? Even a top dollar bridge camera.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

darngooddesign

It is if you have no interest in changing lenses.

Jun 16, 2014permalink

ric63

Nice bit of kit for the $
My question is, does it actualy run the RX10 Sensor?

Jun 13, 2014permalink

My G.A.S. disorder just flared up again.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

TNCasual

Maybe its the angle of the photo 11, but this thing looks comically huge! It cover up nearly her entire face!

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Barney Britton

Allison't face is on the small side of average (I made sure I asked her permission before writing this). You can see dimensions of the camera - not Allison's face - in our first-impressions review.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

SteB

I'm trying to work out the close-up capabilities of this camera. But I can't find any info yet on the close-up distances at relative focal lengths. Also does the macro function work on the whole focal length range, or just a portion, such as the wide-angle end?

Any info would be much appreciated.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

jsandjs

The shortest focus distance of FZ50 (at 35mm) is 5cm and covers about 4cm horizontaly. FZ1000's close-up distance is 3cm at 25mm and I would expect the image is significantly less than 4cm horizontaly. With its 1" sensor, one can get a same IQ as FZ50 does with much greater macro capability.

Jun 13, 2014permalink

justmeMN

Big camera: 17% wider and 9% taller than a Canon SL1 /100D DSLR.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

What about depth when you add the 267mm lens to the SL1. :D

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Stan Wong Photography

The SL1 is a little bit too small for my hand, my pinky doesn't fit comfortably on the grip.

Jun 14, 2014permalink

sh10453

But you you forgot to add a 400mm lens to the SL1 (let alone the entire range of the FZ1000's lens)!!

Jun 19, 2014permalink

tipple

Thx DPR Staff! Must be doing something right with all the comments and interest displayed. It aint perfect but it sure can take some nice pics. Certainly juices up the super zoom category. Deserves a long hard look at acquisition.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Jacques Cornell

Thanks, DPR, for posting the studio test shots already. It seems that despite the MP advantage the level of detail and sharpness is noticeably less than m43 even at base ISO, probably due to compromises needed to squeeze such a huge zoom range into a smallish lens. The same is true of the FZ200 and LF1 in comparison with the LX7: the latter's superb lens gets much better IQ out of a similar sensor.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

And the LX8 with 1 inch sensor and 4K video is coming very soon.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Dimit

It's success depends on how fast the widest level of aperture deteriorates in conjunction with the increase of focal distance.
Should it be F4 by-let's say-30 mm,wouldn't be a game changer.
Should it be F2.8 up to 200 mm,then YES!

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Nat Whilk

This question is answered in the First Impressions Review.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Dimit

It doesn't!!
Just saying: ''Drops off very quickly''.Specificaly??

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Fleabag

It's success depends on which movie star they get to promote it.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Nat Whilk

It does!!! Look at the graph at the bottom of the first page.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Kirppu

It's around F8 equivalent at 28mm
http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/images/apertures-001.png

Jun 12, 2014permalink

MJ Jones

According to Cameralabs " the FZ1000 only offers f2.8 between 24 and 25mm. At 26mm it slows a fraction to f2.9, then to f3 at 30mm, f3.5 at 57mm and finally to f4 at 175mm all the way to 400mm*.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

davidjlee

Which venue denied this camera? The Showbox?

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Barney Britton

The shoebox, yep.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

mister_roboto

Always the Showbox. I'd rather have some superzooms in there than the tons of cellphones being held up.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Absolutic

My biggest problem with Sony rx10 was (otherwise it is a terrific camera) its slow zooming of its great lens. It is painfully slow and I understand it can be benefit for video but for photography it is a pain to go from wide to fully Tele by the time it zooms u lost a moment. With any DSLR or older bridge camera with manual zoom ring it is super fast with a twist. Everything else about Sony rx10 is amazing and I prefer 2.8 to f4 even if it is 200mm vs 400mm.

But neither preview or first impression at dpreview addresses this important point, how is the speed of zoom? I know there are 5 speeds but how fast from on to tele position and then back to wide?

Jun 12, 2014permalink

One review I read said this is a slow zoomer too. I will live with it, but for this kind of lens and video they went with the slow mechanical zoom.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

bluevaping

Well it's seems ok. Not Pro enough. I want to be able take picture of a model at a cliffside and her eye in focus, blur some of her face with shallow depth of field, and the rest of the background, so you can't tell a difference were she at and then use PS to even blur more fine pixel detail in Raw, you know art. But for the other 95% of what I do this could work!

Jun 13, 2014permalink

photog4u

I'll see you Sony...and raise you one...BOOYAH!

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Marcelobtp

WOW, looking at the second photo i just perceived, its HUGE for a superzoom, very interesting specs overall, but the lack of twin dial and headphone jack, combined with the size of it is not buying me

Jun 12, 2014permalink

In the opinion piece it says their is a 3.5 headphone jack.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Marcelobtp

???
Microfone jack you say?

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Yes meant microphone Jack.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

samfan

So we see how much Nikon dropped the ball with the development of N1:
- no really small body like Samsung NX-mini
- no IQ like RX100
- no 24mm eq. lens like RX100 III
- No practical lenses like in RX10 or this Panasonic
- lenses not smaller than 4/3
- not to mention price

Well, good to see that other camera makers now see the advantage of a 1" sensor. Seems to be an ideal size for small cameras.

Now someone make a decent 1" ILC please?

Jun 12, 2014permalink

The image quality of the recent (18mp) Nikon1s equals the Sony RX100ii's image quality. And the Nikon is better at higher ISOs.

There are plenty of practical lenses for the Nikon 1 system. And the lenses are indeed smaller than m4/3s lenses in many cases.

So that leaves price, and the fact that the Nikon 1 bodies aren't as small as the Samsung NX-Mini.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Terry Cioni

Gee, I have the 6.7-13mm Nikkor 1 Zoom which is a small (emphasis on small) gem. I have compared the V3 output closely to the RX10 - they are about the same - but I would be tempted to give the V3 a win at base ISO. The lenses are much smaller than m4/3 - which tells me you are just trolling when you make a statement like that.

I just compared the Olympus 25mm F1.8 to the 18.5mm F1.8 Nikkor 1. Nikkor 1 is less than half the size.

If you think the V3 Kit is expensive so be it...As for the Samsung NX Mini - plenty of accessory support for it (not).

SAMFAN says it all.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

ageha

What an uneducated comment. No 24mm eq. lens? lol

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Wow! Panasonic is running on all eight cylinders these days. I pre-ordered one on Amazon and already they are showing their "high demand" warning. I have not seen this warning on any Nikon or Canon cameras lately. Nikanon, please take note.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

MichaelKJ

The high demand warning most likely reflects the ratio of preorders to the number of units Amazon expects to receive in the first shipment. Panasonic has a history of being slow to supply cameras to the US.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

This will be VERY popular and may kill any sales of the Sony AX100 which is a camcorder (Who still buys those?) which costs $1100 more but with same sensor and similar lens, and also the RX10 which is $400 more and can't do 4K.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

How do you know it's the same sensor? Panasonic also makes sensors.

And editing 4K video is still a stretch for many computers.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

Free software can down convert 4K to 1080. It will end up looking more detailed and better overall than 1080p shot from any camera. This has been discussed in all the video forums.
As for the sensor,the FZ1000 seems to have a better performance at 1600 ISO than the RX100III, so it is very similar or slightly better. Check the studio scene here.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

Lab D:

Right, but I was talking about editing 4K and outputting 4K.

Just last night I had some fun with outputting 4K video to 1080 on my laptop. (Adobe Premiere 5.5 doesn't then recombine the audio and video file--easy enough to fix I realize.)

Things got a lot more difficult when I tried to take the 30 second 4K file and crop it. I did manage to make it work, but it took a few tries and all 12GB of RAM. This ability to crop is a big appeal of 4K--for all the reasons cropping is helpful with a still camera.

Have to get some more 4K files.

As for this Panasonic, I looked at the studio scene, in raw, at 3200 and the shadows looked a like the shadows in Sony RX100III examples. Who knows, I'd want many more raws and real extraction software before coming to some conclusion. (I'm more interested in the rumored LX8 anyhow.)

Jun 12, 2014permalink

EthanP99

Oh you mean the camcorder that records xavcs(which the panasonic cannot do), has optional 12 hour battery, a touchscreen, unlimited video recording time, better video adjustment, built in ND and better ergonomics for video? I can see why someone wouldnt want the ax100 now... Xavcs is a good enough reason to buy the ax100 over panasonics fz1000

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Proprietary Xavcs? Awesome. I am sure everyone's software supports it. :D That is simply a consumer grade codec from Sony.
Anyway, $1100 for a consumer camcorder that will be much worse for stills, no thanks.
btw, I hate the ergonomics of the AX100. It is rather uncomfortable which may be why no one buys that style of camera to use hand held anymore.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

EthanP99:

What's the advantage to xavcs? The other reasons for using the AX100 I apprehend.

And I realize you were addressing the OP.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Lab D:

The xavcs format is some variation of MP4 and opens easily enough in Adobe Premiere 5.5+plays well enough on my Windows laptop, not so much on a Mac.

The AX100 costs a bit more than $1100--more like $2000. And I like the design of the AX100's body.

But if the Sony is not for you, there's this Panasonic or perhaps a different Panasonic or Canon.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

Lucas_

Same sensor as the Sony RX10, first time Panny "surrenders" to a Sony sensor to achieve High IQ. This time they did right, I never liked Panasonic sensor colors and low light image degradation. Anyway, for me a 25-400 is an IQ compromising stretch, I rather go the RX10 way which is smaller, lighter, has the built-in ND filter and that great Zeiss lens. As for 4k, the RX10's 1080/60p video with full-sensor sampling is already an overkill for my occasional use.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

GH3 was a "Sony" sensor. They all share tech now. The GH4 uses a Panasonic sensor that performs just like the Sony but with a faster read out.
This could be another Sony sensor with some tweaks.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Lucas:

How are you sure it's the Sony sensor?

It's not impossible, but how do you know?

Jun 12, 2014permalink

aftab

Some people are so jealous! :P

Jun 12, 2014permalink

JustDavid

is this still a review update or a part of direct advertising? 4 articles and one huge banner for one camera on front page in one day? this will surely break the record of Sony RX100 III :)

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Believe or not, this is another camera I'm seriously interested in. Along with tons of other users, I assume.

I predict these article series receiving at least 500 comments.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Oleg Vinokurov

Well, it does make sense, no? Like sony RX100 III this is another really interesting product and not simple small upgrade of previous model. So, why not expose it more, since many show their interest in?

Doubt amazon cares much which cameras sell better as long as something sells. Can't really think of this as advertising.

p.s.
But i'm sure i won't buy this, i want it, but i don't need.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

JustDavid

my point is more around the fact that the info is split into 4 articles in the same day... wouldn't it be better to run is as a sort of blog feature with links to all new findings? this would save a little space on the front page and keep things together in one source... news blogs are standard and solid tools used by a lot of media today...

Jun 12, 2014permalink

They did the same thing for the Sony RX1003 maybe you could give them the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to give us as much information as possible without a full review. More information is better and they used different writers. And yes they are in the money making business. So is everyone. Why get mad at that?

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Rob Bernhard

[[ news blogs are standard and solid tools used by a lot of media today...]]

@JustDavid
Why do you care? You already believe you have identified the threat, so you know how to avoid it. Are you really worried about the less clever, unwashed masses?

Jun 12, 2014permalink

JustDavid

@Rob, I care because I have an opinion. And comments are the place where I'd expect people to voice their opinion and discuss it. So thank you for your input. I don't consider people who have other or no opinion 'less clever, unwashed masses'. Although one version of a classic phrase says 'I have opinion thus I am alive' :)

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Impulses

Your opinion is that the articles are superfluous, yet you still wasted the time to click thru and comment, thus negating your opinion. You basically achieved exactly what DPR wanted, they grabbed your attention and sold a few more page ads. While I agree that the 4th article seems a bit extraneous I dont really see the point in complaining. Im not interested in this camera but I still find the content worth reading, and if I didnt itd just be an extra click of the scroll wheel to look past it.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

Barney Britton

^^phazelag^^ is correct.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Rob Bernhard

[[I care because I have an opinion. And comments are the place where I'd expect people to voice their opinion and discuss it.]]

In other (and far fewer) words: You don't have an answer to my question.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

HarryLally

Does the lens have any sort of image stabilization? It's not mentioned here or in the review. If not, 400mm equiv is an awfully long FL to shoot without IS.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

photofan1986

5 axis image stabilization, it's in the spec sheet.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

HarryLally

Thanks photofan. Missed that.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Andrew Butterfield

I like everything about it except for the hilarious hugeness, which would be a dealbreaker for me. Damn the laws of optics.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

webrunner5

Yes, it looks to be bigger than I would have thought from Panny in this day and age. Looks like a nice camera but like I said elsewhere on this site I still think it is too expensive to talk a lot of wives into lol.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

saralecaire

I wonder if the size is due to having the need to dissipate heat for 4K video, or to counter balance/stabilize the lens? or just to make it look substantial marketing wise...

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

webrunner5

You bring up some good points. Probably both right!

Jun 13, 2014permalink

Michael_13

Same for me.
If size is crucial, I can recommend Olympus Stylus 1:
Very fast and easy to handle, very good lens & iq and still very portable.
If you like to read a well done review:
http://robinwong.blogspot.de/2014/01/olympus-stylus-1-review.html

Jun 16, 2014permalink

Here's a 25mm / f2.8 equiv shot: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2946618/?inAlbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000-real-world-samples ( P9390961_ISO125 )

While it only allows for assessing the corners on the bottom (the top two corners have nothing), it doesn't seem to be bad. Certainly much better than the RX100M3 at f/1.8.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

2eyesee

"Since its arrival in our office, the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 has hardly had a moment's rest."

No wonder DPR still haven't finished the RX100 III review :)

Jun 12, 2014permalink

marc petzold

just right. :) i'd like to see a LX8 preview, not four (!) main articles on the dpr main site about a superzoom bridge.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Giklab

Umm... LX8? Does that even officially exist?

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Its funny we get more information finally instead of less and people complain!

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Hugo808

I'm sure it's a lovely gadget to play with but a Nikon D3300 and two lenses will be smaller lighter and cheaper and will take better pictures too.

Am I missing something?

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

What Nikon lenses do you mean? Superzoom ones? The $1000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR, which, while indeed a bit longer (450 vs 400) but only starts at 27mm (and not 25), produces pretty soft images when zoomed in? I'm pretty sure the Pana produces significantly better (crisper) images at the long end of the zoom - at least the test images (like the one at http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2946619/?inAlbum=panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000-real-world-samples ) show this.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Hugo808

18-55mm and 55-300mm ought to do it.

Plus you get versatility to add extra lenses like the 10mm-24mm or a nice macro lens or the 35mm 1.8 for low light.

Jun 12, 2014*permalink

OK, I missed the word "two" in your original post. I thought you referred to superzoom lens.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Yes I dont think the math ads up. The two lens combo with a D3300 wont be smaller and lighter. And if your going to use semi soft (not sharp) kit lenses that come with the combo pack that are f3.5 to 5.6. The photos will not be better. If you get the f2.8 24-70 and the f2.8 70-200 and a 2x teleconverter to match what this does is will be super heavy and one lens will cost more.

You may want to investigate more deeply why fixed lenses are usually sharper and faster than kit lenses.

Jun 12, 2014permalink

Hugo808

I never noticed my Nikon kit lenses being soft. You must have bought a couple of duds.

It's all about what you want from your gear I suppose. One lens makes it less hassle to use I guess....

Jun 12, 2014permalink