Panasonic fz1000

bigbob

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
73
Location
MA
Real Name
Robert Morin
Looking for comments. How good is camera? Will it replace GH3? easy of use. I am thinking of buying one. bigbob
 

demiro

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
3,238
Location
northeast US
It's a good camera for what it is, but if you are using a GH3 anywhere close to it's potential the FZ1000 is going to fall short in the comparison.

It is very easy to use.
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,866
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
Definitely depends upon what lenses you put on the GH3. If you're just using kit zooms, IMHO you'd be better off with the FZ1000. But if you put good quality lenses on the GH3, it's going to be significantly better, but it would also cost more.
 

bigbob

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
73
Location
MA
Real Name
Robert Morin
soccer and general photography
 

wushumr2

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
154
FZ1000 has the new DFD focus system so continuous focus should be better than what the GH3 can offer, regardless of lens. In terms of overall performance, the FZ1000 at 400mm equivalent and f/4 is basically the same as a GH3 with a Panasonic 45-200 at f/5.6 because of the sensor size difference, which is probably a useful comparison soccer-wise. You'll also have a significantly better viewfinder compared to the GH3.
 

demiro

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
3,238
Location
northeast US
I've shot kids soccer with the FZ1000 and the E-M5 + 45-200. Probably a pretty close call to which I prefer. Leaning toward the FZ1000. Better keeper rate. Having said that, if shooting soccer or other sports was my priority I'd still have a DSLR.

Here are a few soccer shots with the FZ1K. Should've been in shutter priority at 1/1000, but I apparently wasn't even thinking about what I was doing :confused::

keeper.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

kick.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

goal.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

tosvus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
691
Well, as long as you have reasonably lit up areas where you shoot, it sounds like the FZ1000 would be a better fit for you. For low light, with f2.8-4 combined with a 1" chip, you will be more limited (though fast and far reaching lenses for m43 are rather expensive so maybe not a realistic choice to go for that anyway)
 

scott2hot

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
318
Location
west yorkshire
Real Name
scott
are these pics above taken in some sort of painterly effect? not trying to be sarcastic...but if not....not even close!
 

scott2hot

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
318
Location
west yorkshire
Real Name
scott
I really wasnt trying to be funny...i too have thought about a superzoom bridge , but from my own bridge cam shots 5 years ago (think fuji) i dont think even with the 1" sensor quality has jumped enough for my purpose's...any of my M4/3 cams first generation and the poorly rated 45-200 blows the image quality away.Sorry but you would be better served with a cheap canikon and tamron 18-270 or equiv
 

bigbob

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
73
Location
MA
Real Name
Robert Morin
Great soccer pix. Thanks for the reply. bigbob
 

scott2hot

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
318
Location
west yorkshire
Real Name
scott

These are some good examples.....i COULD BE WRONG WITH MY ABOVE ASSUMPTION
Although i had sony rx100 and in good light it was very nice and sharp...iffy light and it suddenly got real bad!
Sorry i just think for the size and price of FZ1000 you could get a nikon D90 and superzoom with stunning quality compared...i know and still miss mine...but this is the reason i came to M4/3..less bulk.
Just purchased a GM1 to stick in my pocket and compliment my GX7...suits me just fine.
 

uhhitsfuzzy

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
20
i also thought that there was a painterly on those soccer pics. I thought it was just me. I used to have the d700 then switched to m43 (ep1, em5 and ep5), then i got tired of switching up lenses :( And now I have the FZ1000. Im hoping that it can keep up with whatever i need to shoot. I usually do Nightclub photography, which i had a hard time using the ep5/12mm/7.5mm/45mm/fl-600r, and i also do night time long exposures here in Los Angeles. I have upcoming gigs for nightclubs here in hollywood for the next few weeks and music festivals for the rest of the year. Im really hoping not to regret the fz1000.
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,866
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
These are some good examples.....i COULD BE WRONG WITH MY ABOVE ASSUMPTION
Although i had sony rx100 and in good light it was very nice and sharp...iffy light and it suddenly got real bad!
Sorry i just think for the size and price of FZ1000 you could get a nikon D90 and superzoom with stunning quality compared...i know and still miss mine...but this is the reason i came to M4/3..less bulk.
Just purchased a GM1 to stick in my pocket and compliment my GX7...suits me just fine.

Rather than a D90, I'd recommend a D5200 - with a much newer better sensor. The fly in the ointment is, you'd need a 300mm lens on that Nikon to get the same reach, and those are going to be big and bulky, and at least 1 f-stop slower at the long end, unless you drop some real bucks on that lens. That being said, you could bump the ISO up one additional stop on the D5200 and still get at least the same image quality as the FZ1000 would offer. The issue between the DSLR and the FZ1000 comes back down to bulk of the entire multi-lens system, and the need to change lenses to match what the FZ1000 offers in one lens.
 

scott2hot

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
318
Location
west yorkshire
Real Name
scott
Rather than a D90, I'd recommend a D5200 - with a much newer better sensor. The fly in the ointment is, you'd need a 300mm lens on that Nikon to get the same reach, and those are going to be big and bulky, and at least 1 f-stop slower at the long end, unless you drop some real bucks on that lens. That being said, you could bump the ISO up one additional stop on the D5200 and still get at least the same image quality as the FZ1000 would offer. The issue between the DSLR and the FZ1000 comes back down to bulk of the entire multi-lens system, and the need to change lenses to match what the FZ1000 offers in one lens.

This is all true...but have you actually handled FZ1000 pretty big in comparison and tamron 18-270-sigma 18-250 very comparable...although on fredmiranda i have seen some very nice images from said Fz1000...for day light or tripod low light it does seem a good comprimise.
As for D90 i always had a soft spot ..my first real camera and although the newer versions are very good , the richness from the D90 files still for me blows any later nikon..had 5100 ..5200... 7000 and still all my D90 images pop way more...cant explain why...maybe 12m was the real sweet spot for nikon APS-C.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom