Anyone using the FZ1000 for weddings?

[Jack Walsh]

Originally Posted by Robert Benda

We don't have a signing here. However, my main issue is that I want opposite side cameras for the vows. Then the aisle cam is a safety to those. The entire rest of the time, I pretty much only use 2 cameras. However, moving to solo shooting, I was thinking I"d have more stationary, unmanned style cameras pre positioned for certain moments (my GoPro, in the balcony, is pretty much just for the processional and recessional, for instance), and then I'd have one camera on a mono pod for cutaways and such.

With the wifi remote app.... hmmm, that would be nice.

Well, I can pick up FZ1000s for about $700 (refurbished or gently used). Maybe I'll get 2 now, and consider more later. That would still leave an issue for receptions.

The low light performance isn't all that great, though, right? If we're comparing to Canons, is it about like the 70D, which is fine til ISO 1600, but really, really should be pushed past 2500?

As far as fz1000 low light goes, I really think it is brighter and cleaner than my 70Ds, using basic f1.8 primes..... Even zoomed in slightly. Still falls down when they cut the lights though. I havn t been above iso 1600 though. I love the 70Ds, but they might have to go, now that I ve experienced what a great tool 4K is.....

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Jack Walsh

As far as fz1000 low light goes, I really think it is brighter and cleaner than my 70Ds, using basic f1.8 primes....

Interesting. Kind of implies by association the GH4 excels the 70d for low light too, which isn't what some owners have implied, so good to hear another side.

[Jack Walsh]

Nothing scientific about my comparisons Steve, just LOOKS better.
Would be a whole nother story using faster primes on the 70D. I've never invested in f1.2s or f1.4s, due to me sometimes struggling with sharp focus when wide open with the f1.8s.

[Chris Harding]

I have pushed the FZ1000's pretty hard at receptions and it's pretty hard to get a noisy image. 1600ISO??? Shucks I have let mine run to 3200 many times and the image is clean and perfectly usable ..I have even pushed the ISO to 6400 when all the lights went out and my LED light was out of reach and was amazed at the lack of video noise at such a high ISO ..with my old Sony EA-50's which have a bigger APSC sensor the image would be full of speckles and blacks would turn brown. Technology is advancing so fast the mind boggles! It's always worth pushing your cameras at a wedding just the once to see what you can use and what you can't use. Maybe our receptions are better lit but the only time I use a video light with the camera is when the venue turn virtually all the lights out for the first dance ..then I just use it as a fill! Because the FZ1000 is a fixed lens bridge camera don't assume that you have to pull out your DSLR and your fastest prime lens ... the FZ might surprise you!!

[Steve Burkett]

I'd be surprised if it excels the GH4 in low light at comparable apertures and ISO, especially given both are produced by Panasonic with similar tech and codecs. So far all footage I've seen shows a similar handling of low light and at 6400 ISO on my GH4, blacks are black and noise is more a fine grain than the speckled kind I saw on my old 60d and even the GH2 I currently have. That said, I know when 2.8 just doesn't cut it. I may get a useable image with my 2.8 lens, as long as there's some light to work with. However compared to a fast prime, there's a clear difference in quality.

I'm still waiting any fz1000 owner to show footage of a dimly lit venue at 6400 ISO. Who knows. Maybe I will be surprised. If so I'd wonder what Panasonic gave the fz1000, it didn't feel it could share with the GH4 and G7. I appreciate owners enthusiasm, but saying something is good could only mean its being compared to something bad.

[Jack Walsh]

I've spoken with a couple of local wedding videographers that use nothing but GH4s, they both told me that they were not happy with low light perfomance, so always set up lights for receptions. Maybe they are just chasing that BRIGHT video look, no matter what.
You would think that the GH4 would have better low light than the FZ1000.
I personally LIKE the look of darker footage, when it's actually dark, looks natural to me.

I wonder how well the Panasonic camcorders can match with the FZ1000!? Could be worth looking into for me........

[Chris Harding]

Hi Steve

Colin posted a clip here at a very old Church in the UK going right up to 6400 ISO ..I have a feeling it's on this very thread but will need looking for. The GH4 has a bigger sensor and you have the facilities to snap on a very fast lens so technically it should be way faster. However via processing maybe their fancy processing engine performs miracles.. I have no idea ?? My Sony's had APSC sensors and with an F2.8 Sigma lens I do find the FZ has cleaner low light (note I didn't say better) I have also seen talk that big sensors with high pixel counts are not the best light gatherers and fewer and bigger pixels will be better in low light but sacrifice resolution ...The FZ doesn't have that feature so maybe it's just the marvel of electronics ??? Overall I find the end product still a lot better than my bigger Sony cameras. Surely the GH4 with an F0.95 prime has to be way, way brighter than the FZ F2.8 lens??? I just report what I see!!

[Jack Walsh]

Dont know if this will help>>>some still frames from 70d and fz1000 video in a dark corner, at home.
Both at f2.8
1600iso, then 6400iso.

Top two are 70D
Bottom two are FZ100.

[Chris Harding]

Hey Jack

So the top two are the 70D - 1660/6400 and the bottom two are the FZ1000 (that's how the clips are named anyway) .... The FZ does an amazing image at 6400 ISO and is quite usable!

I found similar results too but I still zap a small LED light on the B-Cam before the first dance just in case the staff decide that turning down the lights means turning them off!! I have done quite a few weddings and never used any lighting at all. On average using my Sony's in the same situation I would need an F1.8 lens to achieve decent results

The 1" sensor on the FZ1000 does very well as the Canon 70D has an APSC sized chip and both are roughly the same resolution 20.1 and 20.2 mp

I'm off to another wedding down the coast shortly .. should be fun and a break for us too as we are staying overnight

[Jack Walsh]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hey Jack

So the top two are the 70D - 1660/6400 and the bottom two are the FZ1000 (that's how the clips are named anyway) .... The FZ does an amazing image at 6400 ISO and is quite usable!

I found similar results too but I still zap a small LED light on the B-Cam before the first dance just in case the staff decide that turning down the lights means turning them off!! I have done quite a few weddings and never used any lighting at all. On average using my Sony's in the same situation I would need an F1.8 lens to achieve decent results

The 1" sensor on the FZ1000 does very well as the Canon 70D has an APSC sized chip and both are roughly the same resolution 20.1 and 20.2 mp

I'm off to another wedding down the coast shortly .. should be fun and a break for us too as we are staying overnight

Yeah sorry, edited that post!
Would have been easy for you to recognise Chris!

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Jack Walsh

I've spoken with a couple of local wedding videographers that use nothing but GH4s, they both told me that they were not happy with low light perfomance, so always set up lights for receptions. Maybe they are just chasing that BRIGHT video look, no matter what.

It's not as simple as that. Colour and detail can see a reduction in quality once lights go down. It's often not just about getting a useabe image, but one that matches the quality of your day shots. Perhaps a case of being more picky, but a fill light can make quite a difference in getting nice skin tones. Something I find Panasonic's colour science seems to suffer under certain conditions.

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hi Steve

Colin posted a clip here at a very old Church in the UK going right up to 6400 ISO .

Yeah I re-watched. It's hard to say. Looking at surfaces, there's either some very strong noise reduction or heavy compression from YouTube, or both. Kind of wish I could play with the fz1000 myself for a day or so and see how it compares to the GH4. I tend to limit the GH4s noise reduction personally as it can do more harm than good. I find it with Neat Video too, heavy noise reduction just makes floors and walls and other areas with minimum detail look a little off.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

I'd be surprised if it excels the GH4 in low light at comparable apertures and ISO

From all the comparison videos I have seen, and there are a few, it each time was clear that the low light performance at the same f-stop and high iso's was similar but the fz1000 was a bit more noisy.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Jack Walsh

Dont know if this will help>>>some still frames from 70d and fz1000 video in a dark corner, at home.
Both at f2.8
1600iso, then 6400iso.

Top two are 70D
Bottom two are FZ100.

Seeing the images on a large screen, I see ISO 6400 is a little worse than the GH4. Some yellow tinge to the noise, mushiness in some of the detail; not as bad as my GH2 by a long shot, but not quite as good as the GH4 at the same aperture and ISO.

[Jack Walsh]

So where does that leave the Canon 70D!!!!????? Looks pretty sad in my comparo's!

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Jack Walsh

So where does that leave the Canon 70D!!!!????? Looks pretty sad in my comparo's!

Er yeah, afraid so. :)