Hate to do it as the video features of this cam are truly amazing but in the end it boils down to image quality. Still images from this cam are really disappointing compared to the FZ1000 and even the FZ300 and FZ200. Color and detail are just not there and bokeh is terrible. I would assume sensor and processor are same as FZ1000 so it must be the glass. I thought it might be possible that I received a bad copy of the cam but in checking others photos from the FZ2500/2000 I am seeing the same thing as I am getting. Hopefully future updates to this series will include higher quality optics.

Hi Tom

There was a post about this on the FB group and most decided that it was the way the lens works. The glass is still Leica but the way it works is different with only internal elements moving when you zoom. There is an answer BTW and that's on your chosen profile change the profile. Make sharpness +5 and drop the Noise Reduction to -5 and you will get an image pretty close to the FZ1000.

To be honest it doesn't affect me as we are only using the FZ2500 for video (mainly live streaming) and it has never produced a still! I have two FZ1000's that I use for stills and also B-Cam video.

For those who only have the FZ2500 the profile change does make a big difference for still.. I guess the extra lens elements make the image slightly softer? I haven't compared video but have you found that the video between the 2500 and 1000 also below par?

Chris, I will try those settings and see if it makes a difference. Thanks.

Video images on the FZ2500 go soft on the edges and not on the FZ1000. Those video functions on the FZ2500 are sweet but it's just not worth the loss in image quality for me.

The big advantage for me of using these kinds of cameras is the ability to have a single camera for both stills and video without the need to have changeable lenses. I have a G7 and FZ300 for video and the FZ1000 for stills. The FZ2500 should been the answer to one camera.

Hi Tom

The post was from the French guy on the group on FB and he spotted it soon after he got his camera ..he also suggested that we use "Portrait" profile as this gives you a much nicer bokeh too.

I would say it's worth a shot anyway. I can use my 2500 for stills but it's in a very complex rig to allow live streaming with an XLR audio adapter, encoder and a 4G router so it's a bit heavy for doing stills (must be about 5lbs!!!) so I just carry an FZ1000 with me so I can zap off any stills I need quickly and conveniently!

Just for interest I have one FZ1000 set to the new 2500 profile settings and it's even sharper on stills!!

I second the portrait setting for video on the G7. Never tried it for stills.

It's not just the detail that's missing on the FZ2500, it's the overall rendering of image. Just not attractive to my eye but that's subjective I guess. I'll play with it a bit more with settings you suggested but I think I'm probably headed back to a camcorder for video and larger sensor camera for stills. Sold my Z5's a couple years ago hoping to get the small larger sensor cameras to pull double duty. I sometimes walk a few miles a day in sometimes rough country and getting too old to be packing around 6 pound cameras plus the extra gear they require. I'm more than satisfied with stills and video from the G7 so may pick up another one or G85, deal with the hazzle of interchangeable lenses, and dump everything else.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Hi Tom

One of my reasons I went the Panasonic route was the incredible sharpness of the Leica glass but secondly I really got tired of cleaning sensors so that was another bridge camera decision ...having a 25-400 ++ is so useful!!

I really don't know if I can handle a small camcorder again! A shoulder mount camera, yes, but a smaller camcorder no. I have become so used to my FZ's with twin handles either side that I think I would now struggle with a conventional camcorder and a SM camera is very bulky!

What does a camcorder have that the FZ1000 doesn't for your type of shoots?? I don't use the 4K Cinema on my FZ2500 (in fact most live stream shoots are 1280x720 cos that format suits the CDN) so any specific 4K shoots are done on my FZ1000's anyway!!

I had been seriously considering the FZ2000/2500 since it came out, to replace my pair of FZ1000s. After following various user comments and using my FZ1000s exclusively for video for a couple of years now, I really feel that the extras offered by the later model are not really worth the change. The video quality and photo quality has been superb with the FZ1000 and I have seen nothing to convince me that the FZ2500 will improve my work.

I can narrow down the possible advantages for me to:-
1) Unlimited record time, 2) Built in ND filters, 3) Smooth and controllable zoom.

1) Only relevant for church services, or school performances but easily covered by a B cam that I always use.
2) I already have variable ND filters if I need them that take seconds to attach.
3) Sometimes annoying on the FZ1000, but I don't tend to use much zoom.

I am considering getting another pair of FZ1000s and replacing the DSLRs for stills as although I love my Canons, the FZ1000 takes great stills and is so much more convenient, with no need for lens changes as Chris mentioned. Having 25mm at f2.8 on the wide end is also extremely useful when light is getting lower.

I've also found that the price for a used FZ1000 at the moment is higher than I paid for my two new, so I think that says a lot about the quality of the camera and justifies my faith in the camera originally as an early adopter. I can't see a FZ2000/2500 usurping them.

Roger

Chris, spent the morning using both the FZ1000 and FZ2500 with the settings you provided for the FZ2500. It was not even close, the FZ1000 was far superior in image quality, not just detail but in overall rendering of image. My little LX7 with 10 megapixel sensor was better (that little camera has a fantastic lens).

It's still possible that I may have a bad copy of camera and I'm going to send it in to get it checked out,. Even with the negatives of the video features of the FZ1000 that I've talked with you about, to my eye it is far superior to the FZ2500. My suspicion is that it's poor quality glass, or, as you suggested, the way the internals of this lens works. This is a real shame as this is the closest camera in this form factor I've seen that functions like a true video camera. In the end for me image quality is most important.

Thanks Tom

I must do some comparisons between the two I think! Are you comparing both stills and video and does it really make a big difference ? If it's a lens issue then both stills and video should have a marked difference!

I jumped ship about 5 years ago and went to Sony after Panasonic shifted their manufacturing to China (mainly because of the Japan quake issues) ...I upgraded to AC-130 cameras and they were a load of rubbish ... many users had many issues with the AC series,

Now, my FZ1000's are made in Japan BUT my FZ2500 is made in China .... could this be another repeat of what I had with the AC-130 cameras ? I think I'll do a few stills this morning on my FZ1000's and comapre with the same on the FZ2500 ....That way will confirm the theory....

Yeah the zoom is so much better but I can live with the 1000 zoom rather than poor image quality!!

Chris, we seem to have followed similar paths. I used Pana DVX100's but didn't care for their early offerings in HD so went with Sony Z5's. Great cams but needed to get away from HDV so sold them. FZ1000, FZ300, G7, GH4, and now FZ2500. All great except for the 2500.

My 1000 was made in Japan, the 2500 in China. Don't know if that makes a difference as my FZ300 was made in China and stellar build quality/performance for a cam at this price point. G7 also made in China and beautiful video, probably the best buy out there if you don't mind investing in a couple good lenses.

I am seeing a very big difference in stills quality between 1000 and 2500. Not so much in video except for those soft images at the edges and when at the farther focal lengths. Not even comfortable selling it until I determine I haven't a bad copy.

Nice to have someone to discuss a possible issue with Tom! The AC-130 fiasco has made me very wary of the products that come out of the China factory .. that was one thing I never checked on the 2500 .... the origin!! I will check a few stills from each camera and see if mine have an issue too. The only plus is that if the 2500 is indeed soft one could sell it and have enough left over to buy a new FZ1000 to replace it!!

Chris, one thing you might want to look at when you're comparing the 2 cams in video mode. Take some 4K Photo Mode video and compare the 8 megapixel stills you get from both cams. Be sure and keep your shutter speed up high to reduce blurring in the stills. Pulling stills from video shot at 1/60 shutter probably won't give you best results in this mode. This might be a better way to compare video quality between the 2 cams. Don't look at just detail but also overall image quality.

Hi Tom

I already did two comparison stills below with the FZ1000 and FZ2500 ... Can you tell which is which?

I only realised that having never shot a still with the 2500 before it wasn't set at 3:2 but 16:9 so the aspect is a tad different ... For the pixel peeper yes I'm sure the 2500 is slightly softer but I doubt whether any bride would notice ? I will however so a comparison video but I again doubt whether the average bride is going to be able to say ....that's a soft image. The images are obviously resized to 1200x800 and 1200x675 so I can upload them. Does the issue raise it's ugly head at wide or zoomed in a long way?

I also checked random footage from both cameras shot over the last six months and honestly I cannot see any loss of resolution at all ..even on the edges. Of course we do shoot weddings in MP4 25P Tom and not 4K so maybe it would show up in 4K video especially if you are pulling screen grabs at 8mb from the footage. In a nutshell for my use both cameras are equal so not really an issue for me at all. Besides I'm the worst person to comment as we live stream our weddings at 1280x720 so it makes sense to record the backup to the card at 1280x720 as well so I doubt whether that resolution would show up any softness. The clips I checked were 1080 though but not 4K so yes the camera could quite easily be softer than the FZ1000 but I wouldn't notice it. I will however try my next commercial shoot in UHD and see if I spot any differences.

Can't tell much from those photos. I shot about 50 comparisons shots this morning with both cams. Both cams set up same, Standard with all zero's and manual WB. Straight out of camera JPEGs. Wasn't able to upload files to this site, something about missing security tokens. Loaded 4 shots on Flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/99231379@N07/33308443963/in/datetaken-public/

Hi Tom

To be perfectly honest I think your FZ300 shots are way way better than the FZ1000 ...They just jump out at you so maybe the smaller sensor is better but honestly, the 300 shots are really impressive and the 1000 shots look dull by comparison!

Chris, the FZ300 shot was not part of my comparison tests and not a fair comparison as lighting conditions were better and I did some minor tweaking in Lightroom. I had two 2500 and two 1000 straight out of camera shots for comparison. The 300 is great for video but gets noisy at 800 ISO on stills. I can go to 3200 on the 1000.

This is what I can get out of the FZ1000 with a little tweaking in Lightroom. Probably do a little better starting with RAW but I don't fool with those unless I want to print. I haven't been able to get this quality from the FZ2500.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/99231379@N07/33094838430/in/datetaken-public/

I've been following this post and would like to add my thoughts. I use the FZ2500 almost exclusively for video and since I've had it it has almost completely replaced my Sony X70 as my video camera. Both when shot in 4K and then downsized to 1080p and on HD the images are very sharp,so much so people comment on it.
I use it for stills too; I normally only shoot at 8 MBJPEG as they are for screen use but when I've shot 17MB raw files I am impreseed by the image.
I think for most people this serves as the best, most useable camera for video and stills at this price. I've seen reviews that compare the lens with the Sony RX10Mkiii and I'm sure that lens is better, but for ease of use and verstility I don't think you can beat the FZ2500.
So unless you are looking to enlarge images way beyond A2 size, I think this camera is fine.
Just my inexpert unquantified comments. :)

Hi Mike

If you are shooting video or stills or both you don't need to be an expert. I think honestly that most of us tend to be "tech heads" and carefully examine every aspect of an image/video for flaws in the hope that we can say the image is "not as good/is better than XXX"

If you are doing video or stills for others they seldom if ever will "pixel peep" and if an image looks good it looks good and that's the end ....both stills and video are considered good NOT by their outstanding resolution or bokeh but by their content. I have shot stills on a Konica Minolta 5mp camera that have left people gasping ...simply because it was an awesome moment and being there at the right time.

Tom takes his photography seriously especially from a technical point of view so to him resolution and sharpness is critical ... As already mentioned in my last post I think his FZ300 shots look way better than his FZ1000 shots (which he favours) where really it could have been the subject and more importantly the natural lighting ... Seriously take a look at his link and tell me that the pic of his dog (FZ300) is not outstanding and his duck pic (FZ1000) is nice but nothing compared to the first one.

Chris, you can't compare the FZ300 shots with the FZ1000 and FZ2500 as it was taken under better lighting conditions and processed in Lightroom. The 1000 and 2500 photos were straight out of camera JPEG's.

I actually tend to prefer less sharp images, both video and stills. I set my 1000 at -3 sharpness for stills and -5 for video. What is important (to me) is clean images with good color saturation and resolution (not the same as sharpness), what you call "pop". If you look at the FZ1000 of my Golden Retriever you will notice it is not especially sharp but has good rich color and is clean. I haven't (yet) been able to achieve that with the FZ2500. Could be operator error, bad copy of this model camera, or the camera just can't perform like the FZ1000. Sending mine in for service.

Chris, if you want to see a more accurate comparison between the FZ300 and FZ1000 here is a shot of the same beagle. Like the FZ300 shot it has also been slightly tweaked in Lightroom. Both are under good lighting conditions, the FZ300 doesn't do as well as the FZ1000 in less than good lighting. Small sensor gets too noisy.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/99231379@N07/32728495800/in/datetaken-public/

Hi Tom

I STILL like that FZ300 shot better ..it's stunning!! Then again I do agree about sensor size ..on the beagle shot that impressed me the lighting was perfect which makes a huge difference!

I did a wedding in a "rustic" venue with just fairy lights strung across the roof with the FZ2500 and I must admit I was impressed ..no extra lighting at all and the image was pretty good Here is a quick link to a 2 minute clip in very dark lighting and bear in mind it's only a 1280x720 stream at only 2mbps bitrate which looks stunning on a tablet but a bit worse on a 23" monitor due to the low bitrate!

https://livestream.com/videohouse/events/6982396/videos/153751890

Maybe your 2500 does have an issue??

Hi Mike

If you are shooting video or stills or both you don't need to be an expert. I think honestly that most of us tend to be "tech heads" and carefully examine every aspect of an image/video for flaws in the hope that we can say the image is "not as good/is better than XXX"

If you are doing video or stills for others they seldom if ever will "pixel peep" and if an image looks good it looks good and that's the end ....both stills and video are considered good NOT by their outstanding resolution or bokeh but by their content. I have shot stills on a Konica Minolta 5mp camera that have left people gasping ...simply because it was an awesome moment and being there at the right time.

Tom takes his photography seriously especially from a technical point of view so to him resolution and sharpness is critical ... As already mentioned in my last post I think his FZ300 shots look way better than his FZ1000 shots (which he favours) where really it could have been the subject and more importantly the natural lighting ... Seriously take a look at his link and tell me that the pic of his dog (FZ300) is not outstanding and his duck pic (FZ1000) is nice but nothing compared to the first one.

Chris, I agree, I looked at Tom's images on my screen, a 27" iMac ( NOT 5k!!) and yes the dog image is better , it wasn't the same subject under the same conditions. But in any event both acceptable shots.I've just shot a traditional Songkran event ( Thai New year) and am really impressed with the detail in close ups- indvidual whiskers- shot in 1080p when shooting a gathering of people participating in the ceremony. So I'll believe the lens is not up to other lenses and maybe the FZ1000 lens is better, but for all practical purposes this FZ2500 is the one for me. Tom, for you it seems that stills are far more important than video so I understand why you want to sell it. Horses for courses?

Thanks Mike

The new cameras have more lens elements and don't retract and expand like the FZ1000 ..maybe the lens is a tad softer. To be honest I'm only doing live stuff with the 2500 at the moment and haven't even tried the 2500 in 4K ..I'll give it a shot sometime but so far I'm happy with both cameras regarding performance and end results

Mike, I shoot far more video than stills. Was really hoping the FZ2500 with it's excellent video features would allow a single cam to do both. Other than the edge to edge sharpness of the FZ2500 I have no complaints with it's video. However, it's video isn't any better (to my eye) than the FZ300 which is less than half the cost, is wider at the wide end, has longer zoom, and stabilization better in 4K. Until I get this figured out I'll be back to FZ300 for video and FZ1000 for stills. Really love that littleFZ300 for video.

This was all hand held and many shots are at full zoom. I can't do that with the FZ1000 or FZ2500.

David Gerald on Vimeo

Nice Video Tom but I'm probably also biased as I love blues!! Pity the audio was flaky and it was annoying having people walking in front of the camera.

Yeah the Fz300 does an amazing job at a tiny price but I would suffer at wedding receptions in dingy light!!

Hi Tom,
I have never used the FZ300 but it looks like a great camera and good value. I'm used to the 1" sensor on my SonyX70 and it's the same on the FZ2500. I can get 'tripod' like shots most of the time at 480 mm in HD using a monopod and stabilised in FCPX so it works for me that way. In 4K I can go over 1000mm with the iZoom and the quality is acceptable for my needs. As I film plays the 'over 30 sec' restriction is not there and that is really useful, as are the silent zoom and ND filters.
As with any camera there is always a compromise in terms of cost/weight/ image quality/ versatility and so on, but for me the FZ2500 ticks all of the boxes well enough.
If you know anyone who wants to buy a Sony X70 with the 4K upgrade let me know, I must just buy an FZ300 :)

I had another go at comparing stills from the FZ2500 and FZ300 this morning. Decided to also do a side by side on video. Since I was taking stills I did not switch to my presets for video on either cam but rather cut back the sharpness to -5 and leave all other settings to my stills mode and use the dedicated video button. Contrast 0, sharpness -5, NR -5, and saturation 0. I shot 1080-60P in camera. Also used auto focus which I would not normally do under these conditions. Because the FZ2500 has the ND filters I was able to use a 1/60 shutter. I did not have a ND filter for the FZ300 at the time so had to use extremely high shutter speed of 1/800 which explains the less than smooth motion and when the drake went air born the motion got quite nasty. The better auto focus on the FZ300 can probably be explained by the smaller sensor and deep DOF, just guessing here. The cameras meter differently but can be easily matched up in post. Using -2/3 exposure comp, setting contrast to +2, and upping saturation slightly on the FZ2500 will get these close in camera. All shots were hand held although I was sitting down somewhat braced.

Chris, although on board audio on the FZ2500 and FZ300 is much better than the FZ1000 it still cannot compete with audio form an external mic which I wasn't using on that Gerald video.

Mallard Drake on Vimeo

Hi Tom

Good comparison BUT will the average viewer see any difference or for that matter IF you had not marked the cameras, do you think that most tech heads that post here would be able to instantly spot any differences between the two without any explanatory text ? To me both are good and perfectly adequate.

This is obviously something personal that you don't like about the camera and that's fair enough .. surely the simplest thing to do is to sell the FZ2500 and use the FZ300 for video ...most of your video seems to be waterfowl related so lighting is always good enough for the smaller sensor. You could always get yourself a variable ND filter for the FZ300 to compensate for bright lighting!

Chris, I think you're misinterpreting my posts. As I said earlier, I have no problem with the video from the FZ2500. It's the stills that are flat for me. For several years I always had to use 2 cameras, one for video and one for stills. When the bridge cameras came out I was hoping (still hoping) that I could use a single cam and be satisfied with both the video and stills. Nobody wants the FZ2500 to fill that niche more than me but the stills quality just isn't there. I don't know if it's operator error, camera isn't capable of FZ1000 quality stills, or I have a bad copy. I can't in good conscience sell the camera until I find out. If it's a bad copy then Panasonic will repair or replace and I'll be in hog heaven. If they tell me it's within the specs for this model I'll sell it.

I don't take pictures or shoot video for the average viewer, I take them for my own enjoyment and to sell and want the best I can get at a price I can afford. I have several filters for the FZ300 but was taking stills at the time and didn't have them with me. I take a lot of photos/video of mallards because with their color and quick jerky movements they are excellent subjects to set up cameras. Most of my shooting is done with wildlife.

Hi Tom

Nope I realise your main concern was the stills side and yes, people on the Lumix forum have noticed the softness too so I understand your issue! That's why the profile adjustment was suggested for stills to try and bring it up to the FZ1000 image quality.

Since you seldom shoot video in low light I would just keep the FZ300 ... For interest how do the stills match up between the FZ300 and the FZ1000 ?? It's pretty hard to get a dual use camera that has everything you want so that's why my FZ2500 stays permanently on video and I use the two FZ1000's for stills and the occasional B-Cam video ... It would be awesome to use just the FZ1000 if it had the zoom facilities of the FZ2500 ... carrying two cameras is a pain!!

Hi Tom,
Looking at your footage I'm wondering if you might have a bad copy of the FZ2500. I've added a clip, unedited, 1080p, 50 fps 100mb/s on a monopod (hence the shake), autofocus, about mid zoom. The old lady was about 5-6 metres away. Rode video mic pro audio. If I stabilise in FCPX it's really OK. I'm very happy with this quality. My stills are normally for inclusion in the video so I'll not be as searching as you.
I'm having trouble uploading the original MOV file so
Here is a YT link,with of course, lowered resolution https://youtu.be/1_SGj3bqzNI
And here is a Vimeo link: Untitled on Vimeo
This was Songkran, the Thai New Year, when it's customary to pay respect to old people. This is a traditional village ceremony, not the frantic squirting with water from the back of trucks that all backpackers come here to participate in.

Hi Mike

I don't think that Tom is concerned with the video quality ..his main issue is that the stills from the FZ2500 are somewhat softer on the edges than the FZ1000 and he wanted the 2500 as a two-in-one camera so he can shoot video and stills whenever needed BUT the stills from the FZ2500 and the FZ1000 differ a lot in overall quality ... we usually use stills to supplement our video so the quality is good enough but Tom gets exceptional stills from the 1000 so expected the 2500 to be just as good.

Am I right Tom?

That pretty well nails it Chris.

That looks very nice and rich Mike.

I haven't given up. I am hoping Panasonic tells me I have a bad copy of this cam if I can ever get through to them. They certainly addressed the video issues I was having with the FZ1000 with the FZ2500. Going through their website it says it doesn't recognize the model I punch in. In calling they keep me on hold for over an hour. If they tell me my cam is within their specs hopefully they will address the lens issues with the next version of this cam. This for me would be the perfect all in one camera.

According to B&H website both the FZ1000 and FZ300 are selling better than the FZ2500. Is this because of the big difference in cost or a possible issue with the FZ2500 lens. I have no idea. I wonder if this reorganization they are going through is going to effect future models of this cam. That would be a real shame.

Hi Tom -
Been lurking on this post, trying to see what you're running into.... I have the RX10M2 and M3 myself, and have tried Panasonics a few times....

Playing back your video comparison, 1080 on a 42" 4K TV/monitor, here's what strikes me - the FZ300 is the softer of the two overall, but due to the shallower DoF, it's a more "even" look across the entire screen... motion issues as you've noted have some effect on the clips, as expected.

BUT, and this is where you may want to see if you've got a bunk lens... in the FZ2500 clips, I was discounting the out of focus to the shallower DoF, but the second time I watched more closely, I noticed that the lower right and upper left corners are more distorted (rather than just out of focus - sort of looks "more" out of focus, but it seems like it's more than that?) than the opposing corners that in theory are about the same focal distance, and at a couple frames those areas seemed to come into focus while the rest of the frame drifted off... took me a second pass to see it, but it's pretty "off" once you know what you're looking at (for?)... maybe this is what's been driving you batty?

From a practical standpoint, most people wouldn't ever see the (edge) distortion and would be more impressed with the "subject" being sharper? Until I spotted the corners, I thought the duck looked better <wink>.

Content and composition is always "king", but you don't want a camera that has aberrations if you can help it. From what I know of lenses, it's quite the challenge to get all the elements aligned and maintain the image quality across the whole frame...

My challenge with Panasonic has always been with the compression artifacts/blotchyness in parts of frames (particularly in lower light areas), and certain skin tones that seem "off" to my eye, but the features and price are certainly solid.... FWIW, the GH5 samples I've seen seem to have addressed those "issues" I've mentioned.

Thanks for the feedback Dave. Although I don't notice it as much in video, what you are seeing is what I'm seeing with stills. Makes prints unusable. I also don't think this camera renders as nice an overall image as the FZ1000. I suspect it's a lens issue but until I get it in for service I don't know if it's typical of the cam or I have a bad copy. Hoping it's the latter and the problem can be fixed.

Hi Dave

I remember my old hmc80's and one issue I always had was in 50P was areas with a lot of detail had severe pixelation but I was never sure if it was a lens issue or not ..it never appeared in 50i only in progressive ... one of it's favourite tricks was to blur/artifact the bride's cheek bones at weddings which was a disaster!!

Tom? I'm wondering if there is any isolation tests you could do to prove it's the lens and not any compression issues ... Have you tried stills in different resolutions but more importantly does a raw image have the same corner problems and does it appear at most focal lengths?

I remember Panasonic had terrible issues with the Chinese produced AC-130 and 160 and they were all lens related BUT those were branded as "Panasonic Lens" not a "Leica Lens"

I'm quite happy to see if I can replicate your issue on my FZ2500 if you can maybe give me your camera settings and profile including zoom where it's worse and I can shoot a few stills for you to compare? Maybe do a very controlled test with your camera and give me the exact camera to subject distance, zoom etc so the conditions are identical .... Let me know if you would like that done?

Chris, appreciate the offer. That would probably be the best way to determine if it's just my camera or typical of the model. It's on it's way to Panasonic repair so don't have it available at the moment. We'll see what they find. Thanks again.

did you get the problem resolved Tom