As it seems that Chris Harding and myself are the only ones regularly using the camera for weddings, I thought I would post my thoughts and findings after a number of weeks use at 7 weddings, several school production shoots and a lot of personal trips. Claire and I have been using the camera for both stills and video and I am now using it as the main video and stills cam.

If we only have one wedding on, then I take both FZ1000s to enable me to change from stills to video with one camera for each. In anything other than creative video mode, The camera allows for taking stills while filming video, but at a reduced 2mp resolution. If I am doing a joint photo and video package, I would usually use the second camera for stills and my other Panny video cams as b/c cams. However, for shorter civil ceremonies, shooting in 4k, enables me to take 8mp stills from any frame of footage. Apart from situations where flash would be a benefit, the results have been excellent. It is especially useful where registrars won't allow the use of flash or noisy shutters.

POSITIVES
The picture quality whether in video or still mode is superb and now I am used to using the large number of settings variables, can quickly set the camera up for just about every situation. The AI+ settings are also excellent and I have found that I can switch to auto in both photo and video modes when I am under pressure, knowing that the results are going to be very good. I have to confess to using the auto settings more than on any camera I have ever used, because they are so good. This is helped by the fact that you can increase or decrease gain in auto mode with the thumb wheel for instant adjustments.

The manual focus with peaking is also very useful for pulling focus shots. Stabilization is also as good as any I have used and makes hand held telephoto stills a doddle. Handheld video is also extremely stable and the artificial horizon indicator makes it simple to maintain horizontal position. Telephoto range is also good and the intelligent zoom just seems to use more of the sensor without increasing visible pixels in the image. The aperture drops from f2.8 to f4.0 through the telephoto range, but that only becomes an issue in low light at maximum zoom, which I would not normally want to use.

There are most of the usual DSLR type stills settings, with various burst modes, exposure bracketing, even an HDR option. Dynamic range and contrast are adjustable and a number of custom picture profiles can be set up. In creative video mode, there are the usual A, M, P, modes, plus high speed at 120fps and exposure can be changed while filming. The camera is useable up to ISO6400, but above that the grain becomes noticeable quickly. I usually try restrict to ISO3200 unless absolutely necessary.

NEGATIVES
The inbuilt mics pick up a lot of camera noise, which for video work on quiet shoots is very noticeable. I always use a camera mounted external mic. The zoom is only really useable at a fairly fast speed and has no slow zoom at all. Manual zoom is pretty much useless for filming as you cannot get a smooth movement, but is good for fast reframing. Some people have complained about the lack of an inbuilt ND filter, but a simple lens mounted variable supplies my needs.

The lack of a fixed aperture through the zoom range has been criticised by many, but as I don't use the full telephoto in low light I really don't find it a problem. The 1" sensor won't allow the camera to use extreme low light as well as some larger sensor DSLR cameras, but it is way better than my other Panny video cams and it is so easy to mount a variable LED light if needed. Even a small amount of added light immediately makes a big difference, but I should add that in most low light situations such as first dance, I haven't found the need for extra light apart from one wedding where all the lights were turned out.

One design fault in my opinion, is the placing of the battery door at the base of the camera where it is impeded by a tripod baseplate. There are a couple of simple adapters that can be made to address this and Chris has a template available if anyone wants to fabricate one.

Overall, the negatives with the camera are more limitations than negatives and as with all cameras, you fit the way that you work to the limits of the equipment. I have found the FZ1000 to be the most versatile camera I have ever used and one of the easiest to get high quality and satisfying stills and video from at an unbelievable price. There are other cameras that will take better stills and better video if you are prepared to pay for it, but for sheer flexibility it takes a lot of beating and will hold it's head up against a lot of well respected and considerably more expensive opposition.

Roger

I have 2 now and use them at every wedding, until I get to a dark reception, still don't trust them enough in that situation but they are extremely useful

Hi Paul

I have done 6 weddings on just the FZ1000's so far and the only time I have had to pop on a video light was when they turned the lights right off for the first dance (no dimmed..just OFF) The FZ1000 at 6400 ISO is totally usable! My fancy Sony's were pretty much limited to 3200 ISO so there must be something magic in the signal processing. This camera still amazes me with it's performance and features but I would suspect a lot of people would turn their noses up at it simply due to the low price. Nowdays you don't need 3 c Canon C300's to shoot a wedding!! In fact people here still "poo poo" the GH4 but that's their loss!

If you get brave enough try doing a couple of clips at the reception and give the GH4's a break ..you just might be surprised!!

Thanks Roger for the update ... so far I still gasp when I look at the image quality!! I guess I will get over it and get used to it!!! Nice thing is IF you accidentally reversed over an FZ1000 with your car ..it's not a lot of money to replace it ...imagine if you ran over your Canon C300 body and 5K lens!!! Shamefully I have already gouged one LCD screen but it still works 100%

Another two weddings for us on Friday and Saturday so I will report any problems or delights!!! The clip here has some reception shots with no lighting that my Sony's would have died with!!

Highlight : Elise and Dylan - 6th September 2015 - YouTube


Chris

I would suspect a lot of people would turn their noses up at it simply due to the low price.


4K, 1" sensor, long zoom, internal stabiliser and all for £500 if you pick the right dealer. Don't preseume we're all gear snobs. It's low price is one of the main selling points and there's few here who wouldn't pick up a bargain when offered.

Trust me its not the low price that's the issue. Every time Roger writes these little love letters to the FZ1000, I find myself reviewing it and giving it serious thought. Asking myself whether I'm judging it unfairly. It has as you and Roger frequently say, a lot going for it. Alas a lot going against it also and whilst there are work arounds, I'm afraid for some of us, that's just not good enough.

Thing is Steve, having used it for a lot of serious work now, my update is based on my personal experience of using it in the same environment that I always work and it fits my own requirements perfectly.

You refer to it being just not good enough for 'many of us' and it probably wouldn't meet your own requirements, but let's also bear in mind that you haven't actually used the. camera and as you do much of you filming with the G4 there are a great many similarities at a much reduced price. There is no interchangeable lens, which is one reason I like it for flexibility, and it has a smaller sensor, which probably means the low light isn't so good, but the examples that I have seen are certainly not conclusive on that issue.

The G4 is a very popular and competent camera, but having looked at both, I would rather have two FZ1000s than one G4 with all the lenses, for my particular method and style of working. You would rather not and that is fine, others can make their own judgements.

Roger

I have 2 now and use them at every wedding, until I get to a dark reception, still don't trust them enough in that situation but they are extremely useful

Hi Paul,

For the benefit of others reading this thread and for a different point of view, what positives and negatives have you found with the camera compared to others that you have or are using?

Roger

This already has been extensively discussed in this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/529342-using-panasonic-lumix-fz1000.html) where it was clear that it was not appreciated for anyone that did not own the camera to have an opinion about it. I see this thread going the exact same direction, so if I understand it right, this thread is only for actual fz1000 owners to participate in?

but let's also bear in mind that you haven't actually used the. camera and as you do much of you filming with the G4 there are a great many similarities at a much reduced price. There is no interchangeable lens, which is one reason I like it for flexibility, and it has a smaller sensor, which probably means the low light isn't so good, but the examples that I have seen are certainly not conclusive on that issue.


Roger, I don't have to use it to know its not suitable for my needs, just as I don't need to use a Pocket Cinema Camera or a C100 (though with 4k, it would for Corporate), or any camera I happen to browse the specs for to see how it would fit into my operation. The FZ1000 shares similarities to the GH4 and that is a plus. However the negatives clear from any spec list and even your own review count against it.

If I was starting out on a budget, the FZ1000 would be high on my list. However I have some top gear and the fz1000 worthy as it is on the image quality front, just hasn't a place in it. For me it lacks certain features that make it an essential buy and I'd imagine others feel the same. Your needs and requirements are of course quite different to mine.

There is no interchangeable lens, which is one reason I like it for flexibility, and it has a smaller sensor, which probably means the low light isn't so good, but the examples that I have seen are certainly not conclusive on that issue.

In the other thread you where not interested in some user videos that where quite clear to me and certainly worth considering and that did show iso performance comparisons which could give an indication how the fz1000 performs at the same iso and f-stop compared to a dslr, something which is very important to know for anyone considering to purchase this camera, also bear in mind that camera's allowing the addition of a f1.4 and even faster (0,95) lenses make a large difference in low light performance at the same iso levels.

Just because low light is not a problem for you doesn't mean it's not for someone else, you are asking now for positives and negatives so here is one point that can be discussed, I"m only not sure if you are willing to talk about it, and yes, we know by now it's not a problem for you and it doesn't interest you but it might be interesting for others that are considering a purchase.

The clip here has some reception shots with no lighting that my Sony's would have died with!!

That's weird because I remember you praising your sony for turning night into day with your f1.8 18-35mm sigma lens and now it would have "died" at a dim reception?

This already has been extensively discussed in this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/529342-using-panasonic-lumix-fz1000.html) where it was clear that it was not appreciated for anyone that did not own the camera to have an opinion about it. I see this thread going the exact same direction, so if I understand it right, this thread is only for actual fz1000 owners to participate in?

I have no objection whatsoever to anyone having an opinion on anything, but there is very little about this camera from those that are seriously using it, to help and give solid information to others that are considering the camera for possible use. So I do find it quite annoying when I try to start a thread to pass on experiences and gain advice, only to find that it is immediately overun by those who want to tell us how it is not good enough in certain areas because of what they have read. By all means have an opinion, but at least let those few of us that use the camera have an opportunity to discuss our findings good and bad in comparison to other cameras we have used, without being lambasted for it.

Roger

In the other thread you where not interested in some user videos that where quite clear to me and certainly worth considering and that did show iso performance comparisons which could give an indication how the fz1000 performs at the same iso and f-stop compared to a dslr, something which is very important to know for anyone considering to purchase this camera, also bear in mind that camera's allowing the addition of a f1.4 and even faster (0,95) lenses make a large difference in low light performance at the same iso levels.

Just because low light is not a problem for you doesn't mean it's not for someone else, you are asking now for positives and negatives so here is one point that can be discussed, I"m only not sure if you are willing to talk about it, and yes, we know by now it's not a problem for you and it doesn't interest you but it might be interesting for others that are considering a purchase.

I think that is a little unfair, as I looked very carefully at the videos you posted and it was quite clear that the cameras were not set to get the best results for different conditions, but being set to as near identical standard settings as possible. I also pointed out quite clearly that in some of the video, the FZ1000 appeared to equal the performance of the other camera until reaching ISO levels over 6400. I also think that anyone familiar with cameras would not expect a 1" sensor camera to be as good in very low light as a full frame or much larger sensor camera, but tests are just that, using standard settings against a test card. What I am more interested in seeing is how the camera performs in the sort of real life situations that are encountered. This applies not just to low light, but to the very varying, rapidly changing and demanding situations that are encountered at weddings.

I am very happy to discuss using the camera in low light situations, but I really would like to find how others get on with low light typical of weddings and what settings they use, rather than referring to test cards and videos often with little or no setup information. The only people who have fed back on this so far, are Chris and myself who both seem to be satisfied with the low light performance. We have both used many cameras in the past and are both surprised at how well the FZ1000 performs. So although I have the greatest of respect for your abilities and opinions Noa, I really would like to hear the opinions of other serious users if they exist rather than interpretation of the specs only.

Roger

I am very happy to discuss using the camera in low light situations, but I really would like to find how others get on with low light typical of weddings and what settings they use, rather than referring to test cards and videos often with little or no setup information.

Actually in light of my making an informed view on the cameras low light performance, I did suggest in the other thread that samples of the camera performing at maximum zoom in low light be posted for better evaluation. Only as all low light samples from the camera uploaded so far had been taken at wide. Your response was to say such samples were pointless as you'd never use the camera at maximum zoom in a low light situation. Perhaps others have done so and would be happy to submit such an example. After all, for Wedding filming, low light performance does warrant some discussion and the performance of the camera at maximum zoom could well be the deciding factor for many. Maybe now you feel like posting such samples rather than just telling us how good it is. I know you think low light is great, but that could just say more about how bad your last cameras were in low light.

I will have some low light shots, at near maximum zoom ready in a couple of weeks. I got pressured into coming out of retirement to shoot a wedding last Saturday. I know, never say never. The wedding was at my local church, the one featured in my iso test. I was at 6400 when zoomed in and the footage was excellent. Will post a clip when I have edited

That would no say much, from what I understand the camera produces clean enough 6400 iso to be used without neatvideo treatment but if you want to test lowlight capability then shoot at a candlelight only dinner which is a situation I often encounter, first wide, then tele and put a dslr with a few different focal length f1.4 prime lenses next to it and let it run through different iso settings, only then you can truly judge the use of the fz1000 low light performance at weddings.

True Noa, but it would never apply to me. When I need lights, I use them, Never had a problem in that regard. A correctly diffused light will always get a far more satisfactory shot, than filming in a coal hole. IMO. I really dont see the point of all this comparison with other cameras, and lenses. Of course some are better. But it doesnt alter the fact that the FZ1000 is more than up to the job

Lights Colin rely on a controlled scenario and of course subject to any irritations amongst the Guests. I've had requests to turn off lights before and those were diffused and on its lowest setting. I use a ring light where I can, quite happily as like you say, good lighting delivers better results than pushing iso and shallow aperture.

As for camera comparisons, perhaps you're right. I've never doubted that for those Videographers not looking for the DSLR look, the FZ1000 is quite capable of capturing a Wedding to a good standard. In fact, I'm quite happy to sit this thread out as I don't own a FZ1000, nor have any intention of doing so. I only came in as a point was raised as to why the camera gets overlooked and that its low price has led to this snub; a fact I disagree with.

TI really dont see the point of all this comparison with other cameras, and lenses.

It makes a lot of difference for anyone interested in buying this camera, lets say I use a gopro and say it's good enough in low light at weddings for my use, I"m sure many would be disappointed to buy this camera based on my opinion if they have no idea what is acceptable to me, I can use my gopro4 black in that same church you have shot at and it will look ok as well.

When I found those few comparison videos in lowlight between the gh4 and the fz1000 it didn't interest me which one was better but it learned me that both camera's have similar low light performance at f2.8 and 6400 iso where the fz1000 is a bit noisier at it's highest iso setting. Now Roger keeps on saying those vides where not accurate but all three appear to be done with the same f-stop and same iso setting, as noted in each video, and all three come to the same conclusion.

For me this is important to know because having a gh4 I also know now how the fz1000 would perform at similar f-stops and iso levels, I know from experience that f2.8 would not cut it on my gh4 to shoot almost all weddings I cover at the venue and f4 would be totally out of the question, this also means the fz1000 would not cope as well for my particular needs, buying such a camera would mean I could only use it up to the venue in the evening and either switch to my gh4 or use a videolight on the fz1000.

That's the only thing I was trying to say all along but Roger doesn't seem to want to know that because for "him" all is ok as it is. I have been trying to put it into perspective for other users but it appears this is not really appreciated.

I've only ever said that extreme low light/candlelight performance is of no great interest to me, I have never suggested that low light performance is not of interest to others and Colin has kindly offered to post some low light clips, although that offer has also been criticised.

I just don"t understand this absolute obsession with ultimate low light performance. There are so many different sides to using a camera and I just wanted a place where people can discuss what they are finding with this camera, including low light performance. However every time I try to do that, I seem to come under personal attacks for apparently dictating what people may say on the thread or who may post, and the fact that I am not bothered by ultimate low light comparisons with other cameras when others obviously are. It also seems to be the same people making personal statements about what they think I want and don't want.

I am tired of the snide personal comments and have decided to withdraw from any further involvement!

Roger

As someone who has just purchased an RX10ii, I cannot see how anyone could not justify an extra few hundred to buy the RX10ii over the FZ1000. No contest surely??

Sony RX10 II Vs Panasonic FZ1000 - YouTube

QUOTE: As someone who has just purchased an RX10ii, I cannot see how anyone could not justify an extra few hundred to buy the RX10ii over the FZ1000. No contest surely??

That video sums up what I mean by these silly arguments over equipment. There is a contest Clive, The RX10 would be of no use to me at all. I cover fieldsports and the 200 lens on the RX10 just wouldnt cut it for me. I need the 400 of the Lumix. Its all about using a camera that is suitable for the job, regardless of the name on it. Its all very subjective, and always will be.

Actually the video shows the contest is less one sided than I would have thought. No doubt the FZ1000 is a fine camera, albeit one restricted by a few things like no constant aperture and a poor zoom. I'm not sure why Roger felt the forum needed another thread on the camera, given this is the 4th one in so many months, and the last 2 ran to a dozen pages. Whilst a good discussion on gear is always fruitful, if the last 3 didn't achieve the type of discussion Roger wanted, one wonders what he expected a 4th would do.

As someone who has just purchased an RX10ii, I cannot see how anyone could not justify an extra few hundred to buy the RX10ii over the FZ1000. No contest surely??
As someone who has just purchased an RX10ii, I cannot see how anyone could not justify an extra few hundred to buy the RX10ii over the FZ1000 either:-)

I don't film weddings any more & only want one camera & on the specs & videos that I have seen the RX10M2 looked like a better long term purchase. I also wanted something to match easily with AX100 footage. If I were still filming weddings & wanted to standardise on several identical cameras the FZ1000 might be appealing as it is literally half the price of the RX10. On the other hand compared to the costs of running a full frame DSLR the incremental cost of three RX10s versus three FZ1000s is about the price of a good lens.

I just don"t understand this absolute obsession with ultimate low light performance.

It's not an obsession, it's an attempt to clarify to other users what they can expect from this camera as objectively as possible. You wanted to talk positives/negatives yet get very defensive if it's not in line with your personal experience.

I have never suggested that low light performance is not of interest to others

That's right, you said it was of no interest whatsoever to you because you don't have an issue with low light, but does that mean we cannot share helpful information for users that have higher demands for low light or should we only accept what you have to say about the camera?

As someone who has just purchased an RX10ii, I cannot see how anyone could not justify an extra few hundred to buy the RX10ii over the FZ1000. No contest surely??

This thread has never been about a contest between camera's, not sure where you got that idea, it was to pass on experiences and gain advice on the fz1000.

Roger has a very valid point here guys. He is trying to make this an information thread. If you want to sing the praises of the very nice RX10 or GH4 then Chris Hurd has provided forums under Sony and Panasonic especially for those cameras.

Sadly, despite multiple requests Chris hasn't given a forum for FZ cameras at all so our only option seems to be to post here!

If there WAS a forum under Panasonic that the GH and LX cameras already have then we wouldn't need to post here and people that wanted to get information about the FZ series of camera would have somewhere to go!!

Sadly this thread again has been hijacked so it has lost all usefulness as an FZ1000 information thread and has become a slinging match between a couple of people so I will quietly make no further comments here.

Having just gotten an insane deal on an RX10II from someone it just wasn't quite right for, I will say that I'm pretty sure I'll be thrilled with it, and it's "OK" that it didn't meet someone else's needs... my Mk1 will probably stick around for "backup" as it's served me well, and the used prices are almost silly for them... it's way more useful to me than what they seem to be bringing in used... oh well...

If the FZ1000 is meeting the needs after learning to get the most out of it, that's great, the price is right, and overall seems to be a good little camera that doesn't break the bank - I appreciate the posted samples, just to see what offerings are out there. I'm guessing that Panasonic will bring out a "MkII" or FZ2000 or whatever, competition is good! I might even pick up a used FZ1000 just to play around with a bit! The posted footage looks very good, and I'm not really seeing the things that always made me just a teeny bit less than happy with the Panasonic "look", I'm guessing if I wasn't overly confused with a "different" menu set, I could pick one up and get good results!

Every camera is more than just specs, and every camera takes time to adjust to, and learn to maximize (this being a reason that the typical "review" with maybe a few minutes of "hands on" before "critiques" must be taken with a degree of skepticism).

The AX100 definitely had a learning curve (4K having it's own set of potential "gotchas"...), the RX's can do a lot of things that aren't immediately obvious, and so a "long term driving report" on the FZ's is certainly a valid exercise.



One thing that really bears mention and consideration... small, reasonably priced cameras mean that as a business, you've got less overhead, and also that you can upgrade to newer better technology when it comes around. If they (along with your talent as an operator) produce the output that works for clients, and don't get in the way of your creativity/workflow, it's silly not to consider them. They are tools, and when a camera you can buy well sub $1K produces a better image than one that cost several "K's" just a few years ago, it's worth consideration if it meets your needs...

That said, I'm looking for some guy who buys and A7SII (and of course some nice lenses!) and decides it's not for him... or an A7RII, can't be TOO picky after all!

Roger has a very valid point here guys. He is trying to make this an information thread. If you want to sing the praises of the very nice RX10 or GH4 then Chris Hurd has provided forums under Sony and Panasonic especially for those cameras.

Sadly, despite multiple requests Chris hasn't given a forum for FZ cameras at all so our only option seems to be to post here!

If there WAS a forum under Panasonic that the GH and LX cameras already have then we wouldn't need to post here and people that wanted to get information about the FZ series of camera would have somewhere to go!!

Sadly this thread again has been hijacked so it has lost all usefulness as an FZ1000 information thread and has become a slinging match between a couple of people so I will quietly make no further comments here.

Chris that's utter rubbish. Why not post under the Panasonic LUMIX GF / GH / LX Series forum. Yes it technically doesn't say FZ, but surely this thread has a better home there than a Wedding and Events forum. Is it being posted here as a protest to there not being such a dedicated forum? Its hardly the "only" option as you say. I don't think us Panasonic users would mind a FZ1000 thread in the Panasonic LUMIX GF / GH / LX Series forum - it shares a close connection to these cameras and would involve all users of this camera rather than the select few using it for event filming. A much better resource if the intention is to gather information on settings and experiences as Roger intended.

I suggested this for the last thread Roger ran on using the FZ1000, but Roger said he wanted to hear from those involved in Wedding and Event filming, suggesting the lack of a dedicated forum wasn't the reason for posting here. Over 13 pages that thread dealt with many practical aspects of using the FZ1000, so unless the camera has received an update or new features, one wonders where a new thread on its use could possibly go that the previous one didn't touch on. I'm sure if I posted constant user updates on my use on the GH4, it would go the same way as this thread.

Not a wedding man but one who does wildlife. I have two GH4s and a FZ1000. The latter compliments the former particularly in situations, like being on the move, where weight and portability is an issue. (I always use a focussing monitor with the GH4s - I use a Carryspeed VF4 Loupe with the FZ.)

The ability to zoom wide to long with the FZ also very handy, as my only GH4 lens with comparable reach is a 80-400 Nikkor with 1.4X TC which a bit ponderous, to say the least , compared with the FZ, and nothing at the wide end.

At their best the image quality with the GH4 is better than the FZ but the FZ ain't bad and in 4K.

A few clips here from last winter, straight off the SDHC card with audio "in camera". I'll admit to being sat comfortably in hide where weight wasn't an issue but the zoom range was.

https://youtu.be/GJRr2vSPJDA

Ron

The "Sony is better than Panasonic" was not the problem here, at a certain point it was mentioned and I reacted to that telling it was not the intention of the thread and then it also stopped, I think there is some overreaction here, this thread was heading the exact same way as the previous one where only current owners opinion was appreciated.

Chris, it's not just a GH4 forum. I believe it covers cameras with GH, and 2 other designation of cameras; so the fact it doesn't say FZ seems to be the only reason not to post there and a poor one at that. I don't think anyone would have shut down Roger for posting in that forum. Especially as there is yet no dedicated forum for the FZ1000.

Any posts to this forum will invite comparisons with other cameras as it is an event and wedding forum and not a dedicated camera forum. The truth is both you and Roger contributed to any discussions on Sony and other camera comparisons in the last thread and only shot it down when you felt you were losing your argument.

You want to discuss use of a camera, post in one of the Panasonic forums regardless whether says FZ or not. Post here and ask for Wedding experiences, and expect comparisons to other cameras. If I launched a GH4 thread, I'd expect users of other similar cameras to respond. I wouldn't take it personally and would welcome the debate. But then I'm not so in love with the GH4 to take criticism of it personally.

Personally I have no problems with discussing anything in any thread whatever the thread title or the sub-forum. It's a discussion forum & we are discussing & just like a normal conversation it wanders around. I really don't mind having a thread on the Wedding sub-forum about the FZ1000 (or the RX10M2 or C100 or GH4 or whatever). There is always going to be an element of us airing our prejudices & wanting to justify our own purchases but when people express their contrary opinions based on their own prejudices & purchases we shouldn't be surprised or take it to heart.

Hi Nigel

I think Roger still reads the forum but got tired of the constant banter that was totally off subject by GH4 users. Roger posted a couple of very informative threads about his experiences with the cameras that were meant for FZ1000 users ... I totally agree that if he put up a thread called "The FZ1000 is way better than the GH4" or something stupid like that THEN one must expect the flak to fly! but he didn't and it was an honest event experience about how the camera performed at the events he had done. It was immediately hijacked and turned into why he should have bought not only a GH4 but a Sony RX10 ... that was his choice (and mine too) so was totally useless to current FZ users. I'm sure I would have been upset too if my thread had been ripped to threads by people who have never even held the camera in their hand never mind shot with it.

His anger is in this case probably justified but he has assured me that he will keep in touch and post instead on the UK based FZ1000 facebook group which has a huge following.

Really Chris, you're trying very hard to rewrite history to justify this over reaction. Perhaps you should read back on some of the posts and see just how some of the off topic stuff occurred and you'd see Roger reacting badly to any perceived criticism of the FZ1000. The fact I owned a GH4 played no part in my judgement on this camera. I never suggested in any serious post that Roger should own a GH4. True I suggested it's low light is not going to be as good as a fast prime that I use on a GH4, but that is an observation not a recommendation. I also suggested the RX10 was a better bridge camera than the FZ1000 based on specs, as did many others. Again, observation and debate regarding a similar camera. Threads like this will have them. You're can't dictate people's responses.

Something I posted on the last thread was the suggestion that the easiest way to keep these off topic posts from going far is to not reply to them. Unfortunately Roger rose to the bait each and every time and allowed such discussions to fly. If you go back to page 1, you'll see me respond to your post on why people aren't considering the FZ1000 and I replied that it was more down to specs and the camera not being suitable to many users, despite it being a good camera. A post Roger could have ignored quite easily and chose not to. In fact most of the subsequent nonsense here stems from that 1 post by me and Rogers reply to it. Had Roger ignored my post, this thread might have stayed on topic. It's an example of how forums can get out of hand over the slightest of things and why you should never take it too seriously.

Hi Steve

Fair enough but please don't shoot the messenger! I was simply responding to Nigel about Roger's absence and reasons for no longer posting. There is a lot more to the statement from Clive about spending a few more dollars and getting a Sony .. quite valid from my side but having owned Sony's for 3 years I simply don't like the end result! The IQ although technically good, leaves me cold ... In answer to Noa's question about me praising the EA-50 with a F1.8 Sigma on it, yes I did it was WAY better than the very slow E-Mount F3.5 lens and it seemed like daylight in comparison... then again that was comparing lenses with lenses so it doesn't apply here. At last night's wedding I would have used an F2.8 on the Sony and then my usual setup of two 125W CFL lights bounced back into an umbrella to get a reasonable image ...I did just that on the Panasonic and it was way too much light . in fact it blew the picture out and I had to turn one off!

Surely though if a topic is an information one, we really should either keep it on topic and if it doesn't interest or be applicable to you then just don't post in it. I don't own two Canon C300's so if a post pops up about how awesome they are, I accept it and rather read posts that apply to cameras applicable to my situation ... I thought that was the reason for a post title?

Hopefully Roger will keep us updated

Surely though if a topic is an information one, we really should either keep it on topic and if it doesn't interest or be applicable to you then just don't post in it. I don't own two Canon C300's so if a post pops up about how awesome they are, I accept it and rather read posts that apply to cameras applicable to my situation ... I thought that was the reason for a post title?



Chris, adding a bridge camera to my setup is something I am considering and the FZ1000 being Panasonic does hit some marks for me. Yes my conclusion is that should I go down this route, the rx10 would be a better choice, but it's by no means certain and even reading the initial post in this thread by Roger, I did give it another consideration as it is considerably cheaper and I do wonder if for the minimum use I'd have for it, good enough for my means. It's something I swing back and forth on. If there is a successor and it resolves things like the zoom, then perhaps then I'd make the jump.

However if you want a better reason why other camera threads can be productive, then I can give this excellent example. In the last thread on this camera, over the 13 pages, much was discussed on using this camera, but the issues discussed were not exclusive to this camera. Talk on the ND filter was very useful including ideas on adding a hood to one. As a consequence of those discussions, I now have a hood glued to my ND filter. Something I wouldn't have done if not participating in a thread on this camera. I similarly browse and may even participate in threads on other cameras I don't own for similar reasons.

I read posts about other cameras, and there shouldn't be a "contest"... it just isn't like that!! Reading about the latest greatest "tool" and how people are using it is at least a good part of what makes these forums useful...

There have been so many changes in cameras that it's helpful to hear from people who are trying new and different "gear". If it works for them, and turns out not to work for you, well, these things happen! I've bought a few "popular" cameras and found them lacking for what I wanted, yet others were thrilled with them... I've got a rather substantial pile of extra "grip gear" that I seldom use... some because it seemed like it was a cool thing for someone else, some has been re-sold to someone else who found it useful...

I'd recommend the FZ1000 to someone who shot Panasonic just on grounds that it might be a better match for what they already have/use/are familiar with... even though a Sony would be my first preference. The postings discussing the camera here have solidified that it would be a "safe" recommendation.

I think I suggested the cheap puffer flash diffuser that's been decent for me, and it's "camera agnostic"... sometimes ideas, tricks, or techniques apply to any camera...

I sort of wish I had picked up an FZ1000 just for the inexpensive 4K option that seems to be pretty good in some samples I've seen, and not as good in others.. kinda curious to see what results I'd get! May yet do it just for giggles if the price is right! Funny thing is that while used Sonys seem to be available at reasonable prices (thus reducing the price advantage of the Panny), finding used Panasonics cheap doesn't happen often!


There's no reason to become defensive of your camera/gear choices just because someone else has a "toy" they like better or that they think does a better job for them. If there's something posted that's just flat out wrong, and you can show from your experience why it's wrong, that's one thing, but saying "this camera is better than that camera" is right up the "which is the best camera" maze of alleys.

I own a "few" cameras, a couple for a SINGLE feature that no other camera covers... so it's the "best" camera for that ONE thing, but so-so for others... The "best camera" this year most likely will be beaten by some other camera soon enough, so it's silly to treat it like someone insulted your wife or something!

Thanks Guys

I do agree that there are certain parameters that everyone has that are critical to choosing a camera and having to accept horrible workarounds are not what you want. What everyone chooses is their personal choice. I started off in the 80' with Panasonic and liked them ..there came a stage about 3 years ago when I can honestly say they were (well some models anyway) a load of garbage and I dumped my AC-130's after 3 months of frustration and went to Sony ...Unlike Dave, not my first choice as I simply don't like the look but technically they are brilliant!! I'm sure we don't all drive the same model car either!

I looked very carefully at the FZ before buying and yes there were some things I didn't like and if they affected my shooting style, no I wouldn't have bought them. The zoom is terrible (that's honesty!) but I only use zoom to frame shots so that didn't affect me ...otherwise, like taking a new car for a test drive, you either like it or you don't and if you don't you simply buy one you like. There is nothing wrong with the car you didn't buy.. it runs well, it takes you from A to B, it looks smart BUT you don't like it ..same with cameras. This thread did turn into a "Why would you buy an FZ1000 when you could get a Sony RZ10 for just a little more money?" My answer is simple ...it's a great, even technically better, camera but I don't like the Sony image so why should I buy what I don't like?

I've had some of my posts go off topic. I admit the rx10 stuff went too far, and I appreciate Rogers intentions for starting this thread. However in a way he was trying to create a forum within a forum and act as its moderator. A conceit too far for some and led to accusations of restricting this thread to users of the camera.

There are ultimately better resources for creating a user group for a certain camera, a thread in a Wedding and Events forum not being one of them. I doubt I'd keep a GH4 user thread on topic and restricted to GH4 users, and I'd blow a blood vessel or two trying.

Thanks Steve

I have again emailed Chris Hurd to see what he can do to help? Been trying since July!!

All that's needs to be done really is just add a "/FZ series" to the current GH/LZ title so people know where to find the discussions. I do agree that camera discussions belong under Panasonic not Weddings and Events unless it's a specific question related to only weddings

I guess Chris is too busy???

I'd recommend the FZ1000 to someone who shot Panasonic just on grounds that it might be a better match for what they already have/use/are familiar with... even though a Sony would be my first preference. The postings discussing the camera here have solidified that it would be a "safe" recommendation.

I would consider getting a fz1000 as imagewise it would complement my gh4 which is why those comparison videos where linked to, only after have seen those video's the camera would not be suitable for my needs and not a "safe recommendation", that comparison was very important to know how the fz1000 preforms in low light and since it was compared to my own camera I know exactly how it does now at a comparible f-stop. This is also very useful for any other gh4 owner that thinks about getting this as a b-camera to know what the limitations are.

It was only made very clearly this info was either not interesting or irrelevant because it was not a problem for it's current owners that started the thread. If you look at it like that then it's better to start your own blog which I would recommend to Roger if he wants to have total control what needs to be censored or not if it's not in line with his opinion and he can even ban users if he is tired of listening to them, however, that's also partially possible here as well as there is a "ignore" option so you don't have to read certain users messages which, as I found out, works very well.

At last night's wedding I would have used an F2.8 on the Sony and then my usual setup of two 125W CFL lights bounced back into an umbrella to get a reasonable image ...I did just that on the Panasonic and it was way too much light . in fact it blew the picture out and I had to turn one off!

It's with comments like "my sony would have died!" that you get a topic off topic because you can expect this to be questioned, the way you say it know is much better because it gives existing nex-ea50 users an idea about how the fz1000 would perform under the same circumstances at a f-stop of f2.8, a video ofcourse proving this would be perfect. This is exactly the same info I have been trying to give for a gh4 owner and I think this very valuable for any interested buyer, it's not about this vs that camera like you constantly keep on repeating, it's about providing clear info to provide a better understanding how this camera performs instead of saying "it"s not a problem for me".

Hi Noa

Unless you have both models at the same time it's not easy to do a comparison. I did put a highlight clip on page one of this post and all the footage at the end was shot without any lighting so it's much easier for me. One would expect an APSC camera like the EA-50 to be technically better in low light than a 1" sensor so I guess the signal processing is a whole lot better??

Having decided to withdraw from DV info 3 days ago, I have been persuaded to do a U-turn by several very kind, persuasive and supportive emails from members.

Contrary to suggestions, I did not withdraw because of others disagreeing with my views or being over sensitive, but because I felt that a number of comments on this and previous fz1000 threads were becoming very personal and sometimes mocking. As someone who is quite prepared to stand up for himself, the options seemed to be to ignore, respond and risk dragging down the good natured tone of the forum, or withdrawing.

I hope that by returning, the discussions can be kept on the subject rather than personalities involved.

Roger

Nice to have you back Roger

Had two weddings this weekend and the cameras worked very well ..no issues at all!!

To cover a number of points, my reasons for posting in the weddings and events forums, was because I bought the cameras specifically for that use and was interested in what others using this comparatively new camera we're finding. The Panasonic thread does not have a section for the FZ cameras which is a shame, as there would be the provision for threads on different adpects of the camera without lumping all together. Steve mentioned the fact that I had started 4 threads on the Fz1000, but to be fair, in the Panasonic section when I looked the other day, there were 13 threads on the first page on the G4 alone, not to mention innumerable threads on other cameras under the Panasonic sub grouping. I hope that Chris Hurd will respond to Chris Hardings request for an FZ grouping.

Regarding low light performance, I fully understand that some feel it important to compare test results between various cameras for the benefit of others that may be considering the camera. From a purely personal point of view, once concerns have been expressed, I feel it equally important to find out how users are managing with the camera in low light. Do improvements in image processing allow manual changes to be made which enhance the low light performance of the camera in the field or are users finding the limitations a problem?

A camera with interchangeable lenses will allow a much faster lens to be used at higher telephoto ranges in low light with a wider aperture setting. I have other lenses for my EOS 550, but one of the reasons for buying the FZ1000 was to do away with the need to carry extra lenses, providing it didn't compromise my ability to get the end results that I needed. That means that I need to be prepared to use extra light if necessary under circumstances where a bigger sensor and faster primes may be sufficient on some other cameras. So far I have only needed to do that on one occasion where all lights were turned out, but unlike Noa, haven't had to film in a candlelight only situation with the FZ1000. The vast majority of my hours at a wedding are in full to medium light conditions where the camera has given excellent results with speed and convenience for video and photography. For me that is why I bought the camera, and the occasional extreme low light situations are something that I use alternatives for if necessary.

I am not in love with the camera and it is certainly not perfect and there are various things also like the lack of a variable creeping zoom that I have to forego, but for sheer flexibility and picture quality it does just what I need, but would not be suitable for many. All other cameras at whatever price have their limitations, whether due to performance, size, audio, lenses etc, and it is always enlightening to find out how others use their cameras.

I may have started this thread aimed at users, but it is not my thread to control and I hope that all opinions can be considered on a respectful basis as expected on the forum.

Roger

Nice to have you back Roger

Had two weddings this weekend and the cameras worked very well ..no issues at all!!

How are you getting on with the stills compared to the Nikons?

Roger

Welcome back Roger.
I have found this to be a very informative thread. Never be afraid to give opinion or advice no matter what others might say. There will always be people who can take something useful from these opinions even if they don't post. It also true that people can end up arguing without really meaning to in forums on the internet.
Whilst the camera is not for me, it must be very tempting to many people due to the price and performance

Welcome back Roger.
I have found this to be a very informative thread. Never be afraid to give opinion or advice no matter what others might say. There will always be people who can take something useful from these opinions even if they don't post. It also true that people can end up arguing without really meaning to in forums on the internet.
Whilst the camera is not for me, it must be very tempting to many people due to the price and performance

Thanks Andrew,
Both the FZ1000 and RX10 are going to appeal to very similar users, with the Panny having the greater telephoto range and the Sony having the constant 2.8 aperture across the smaller zoom range. I liked the constant 2.8 on my FZ200 cams, but the 2/3 sensor made it lose a lot in low light. Those that prefer the look of one make over another, or have other cams of the same make will probably choose accordingly.

Roger

Hi Roger

Slightly off topic but I staying with the Nikons for indoor stuff and using both the Nikon and FZ for outdoor shoots ... Still need to find a TTL flash for the Pannys

. One would expect an APSC camera like the EA-50 to be technically better in low light than a 1" sensor so I guess the signal processing is a whole lot better??

Your comment recalls my experience with the GH3 when I first used it in conjunction with the Canon 60d I already owned. I expected to continue using the 60d for indoors whilst using the GH3 for run n gun as I had the GH2. I was quite surprised to see the GH3 outperform the 60d in low-light despite the smaller sensor and the Canon was sold on soon after.

If I was jumping from the 60d to the FZ1000, I'd expect I'd be mightily impressed by low light performance and image quality in general. Coming from the inbetween upgrades of the GH3 and 4, obviously this alters my perspective. Not sure how old your ea50s are, but image quality has come a long way in the last few years.

Ultimately how users respond to the FZ1000's low light will depend on what they're currently using now.

Having decided to withdraw from DV info 3 days ago, I have been persuaded to do a U-turn by several very kind, persuasive and supportive emails from members.


It's a roller coaster this thread. :)