Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Thanks Roger

The LED light on the camera for guest shots from about 6' away just doesn't cut it ..it tends to blow out the skin tones on the faces but the camera does handle WB very well ..it balances the LED light quite well. Dunno if you know but with all Pannys I have owned if you point the camera first at a white tablecloth and zoom in it will do a correction in around 15 seconds to get the balance right and THEN you can shoot to your hearts content. I think what I did wrong was use Ia mode for my stills so half were shot at 1/15th so were not sharp at all. Maybe what I SHOULD have done was use manual, lock the shutter at 1/60th and keep the lens at F2.8 and then use the LED light's dimmer wheel to dial in some light to get the right exposure??? I don't think using anything but manual will work with a manual flash or LED light as the exposure is read for the whole scene and your faces which are closer than the background get over exposed....My Nikon SB600 does work on the FZ1000 and goes down to 1/64th power so I'll try it in manual next!!

Just for interest both my weddings were shot in MP4 rather than AVCHD and the MP4 files render like lightning compared to AVCHD which seems to be a more compressed format. Speeds up the edit nicely!!

Chris

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

You do tend to oversimplify what I am saying by taking a couple of points and over egging them, although I am sure some of that is down to a tongue in cheek sense of humour and being a bit of a pedant.

I don't keep on picking on bad professionals, but one of the things that tipped me over the edge into adding photography, was filming three weddings in succession with different well equipped photographers, two of whom were downright rude and the other very pleasant. All three were £1500 plus photographers one being just under £2000, but all three couples were unhappy with their photos and asked if they could have copies of ones that I had put on the end of the video. Mine were all frames grabbed from the video and used as a collage of stills from the day with credits and thanks. I thought it odd that all three were unhappy and asked if I could have the link to their photos to see if I could see any obvious problems.

You ask what I consider bad photography and these particular photographers showed various examples of poor photography and/or application. Two of them had told me that there main income was from upper end commercial work. The most expensive one had been asked by the bride to avoid taking shots from one side as she had a very large strawberry birthmark on her face, I even had her on video reminding him. However the birth mark was clearly visible in almost every shot, with all of the romantic poses showing it clearly. I would have at least photoshopped them out. The biggest problem though was that the venue was surrounded with glass windows and a very large number of shots were way too dark, almost silhouettes and not done deliberately. Many shots in normal lighting were overexposed with the dress details burned out and the couple chose only 5 pictures from the ones he had taken. Both of the other photographers had missed important groups that had been asked for, presumably because some hadn't come out even though they were on the video and poses were very amateur, with no attempt to balance bouquets, get the groups standing properly, arranging the dress and lots of very basic stuff. When I enquired of one of the photographers if was going to take any shoe, ring or bouquet shots, or in the car or cake cutting, he told me that his work was artistic and he didn't do 'Cheesy'. The couple obviously didn't agree afterwards.

So my reasons for adding photography were not to be 'Very Noble' as you rather disparagingly put it, but because I realised that I was perfectly capable of taking what the couple's wanted, which wasn't always what they were getting. I also realised that getting great pictures didn't necessarily mean having top of the range cameras and lenses, rather cameras that were able to achieve what I and my clients wanted, both in content and quality. This also went along with a wider business base, more income per booking and being in total control on the day rather than at the mercy of photographers.

Now I have worked with many superb photographers using a variety of equipment, many of whom I still recommend for top quality work and many of whom recommend me. I have also never disputed that full frame cameras and top end glass will achieve more than I can get with my LUMIX cameras under many circumstances and certainly for top end work. It is also true to say, I think, that many are also equipment enthusiasts and love getting the best gear they can afford and wouldn't dream of working with something like the LUMIX even if it gives good results in the wedding field. For me, speed and convenience are essential, but it must also be coupled with good quality in the market I am working in.

So let me finish this long post by saying that most wedding video and photography is the Macdonalds of professional video and photography. It is the way that many get into filming professionally while still learning to use the equipment well. It is the way that many video and photography courses steer their students into getting work, because there is no other way of starting earning reasonable money from it realistically. Many that start out have aspirations to move into movie making or the commercial world of photography and video and would like to use their wedding work as a way to hone those skills and make cinematic video and artistic photographs. Some charge a great deal of money for these services and aspire to the celebrity, corporate and wealthy end of the market. Those that want to go in that direction need to invest in the sort of equipment that will satisfy potential clients who expect the best in skill and equipment. With weddings, that market is a tiny percentage of the overall wedding market, and the wedding video market itself is a very small percentage of weddings generally. One of the reasons for this is that most couples do not see the value of wedding video and are quite happy to have friends and family take the video and often the photos. Most of those that do want professionals are in the mid to low range of the market which is where most weddings stand and are looking for service providers that can fit in with their comparatively modest budget. As Chris says, investing big money on top end equipment to service the end of the market where the most work is, is not a sound business plan, unless you want to raise your prices to cover the increased costs, or intend to aim at high end work.

Bringing it back to the point of this thread which is using the LUMIX FZ1000, this camera and probably others like it, are able to offer a good end product in the right hands, to the area of the market that people like Chris, me and a few others are happy to supply, without aspiring to take on the role of highly specified professional gear. Cameras like the G3 and G4 are more expensive, but still way off top end and cover a very similar market to the FZ1000. You pays your money and makes yer choice!

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Hi Chris,

I only use the camera in auto mode in natural light or fairly bright artificial light and for those the auto is excellent. I always switch to manual for lower light, because as you said, the auto mode in IA will default to a slower shutter speed. I have always used manual anyway for lower light so haven't seen it as a problem.
Have you tried playing about with the exposure modes to avoid the overall exposure situation, perhaps centre point?

I agree with you on the MP4, I've changed to shooting all video in MP4 as the quality and sharpness looks pretty much the same, but editing is much faster. I experimented at one of my schools multi camera shoots with a locked off full stage 4K on the FZ1000. It was only 30 minutes and I paralleled it with another video camera taking the same shot in HD. I have been editing the footage today and have found that I have used more crops from the 4K than any other footage. Although my system stutters on the 4K I have been able to take the shots and crops that I want and they look VERY GOOD :-)

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Only cos you write such long posts. One has to pick and choose from the many. At least I had 4am as an excuse for mine. :)

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

I think we probably both quite enjoy the sparring, probably time to keep it on track with 'Using The Panasonic FZ1000.' :-)

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Actually my biggest issue with this camera and the RX10 is the 29 minute limit. Hacking my GH2s for continuous recordings has paid dividends. I had one in the gallery yesterday and didn't have to worry once about it. I'm planning on getting a 2nd GH4 from Hong Kong for that reason. Yep the risk of using a far off company but worth it for those jobs which aren't timed to 29 minutes.

If I got a bridge camera I'd like it to replace a gh2, but not with that silly clip limit. I understand even exports have it. Why? It's a tax dodge here but not in America. Is a tax dodge suddenly industry standard. Do companies think events are divided by 29 minutes. I have a GH3 and I have to work with it close by rather than remotely, just so I can reset the record. Why do even cheap camcorders have continuous recordings but the moment its shaped like a camera, you suddenly lose this simple ability to press record and leave it running.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Steve it's all down to EU regulations and tax class - Camcorders and DSLRs are taxed differently - the reason they impose the time limit is to stop it being classed as a camcorder and taxed accordingly.

Personally I would rather pay the extra and have no limit - why don't the manufacturers give us the option?

Pete

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

It's an outmoded and outdated tax, what is the point when both cameras and videocams take stills and video!!! Either tax both or neither.

I sympathise over the 29 minute issue Steve as it is a pain on the FZ1000, but only usually for a church service. I do have the remote control app which is pretty good for monitoring the image and zooming, plus stop and start.

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

It just flies in the face of professional gear. I had on Saturday set my GH3 on a light stand, up high to avoid being blocked by a crowded church. Twice I had to disturb guests to lower the camera and restart during the church service. If I explained my reasons, I'd have looked a fool. How can you explain that a camera that cost me originally £1000 is incapable of performing to one that costs only £150. It's all very well Panasonic avoiding a tax, but if they can pay it for a £150 camcorder, surely one worth over 6 times the price should be no problem.

To me it limits the possibility for any bridge camera, from something that sits well in my kit to a camera I can only use if manned throughout. As a replacement to my GH3, a camera like the FZ1000 has potential, but with the clip limit, all I got is 4K and lose a 4/3s sensor for a 1" one.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

I'm really not sure how or why the tax is applied. I would certainly be prepared to pay extra tax if it enabled the lifting of the 29 min limit. Alternatively, why can't Panasonic and the other manufacturers just have two different versions, one inhibited and one not. It is then up to the purchaser to choose whether they want to pay more for the uninhibited version.

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Hi Guys

The way I edit makes the limit on the camera actually an advantage for me! Ok, I'm going back to the Sony's here and AVCHD files and it really was a pain to have to import the files via the Sony Utility and then it joined up the split file and changed it's extension to a long date based one. Basically it put my nose out of joint so I purposely started restricting my record lengths wherever I could so I didn't need to have to end up with split files. At 50P that meant I had to try and reset every 15 minutes so I have become quite used to doing this and reset at convenient places not just as the recording is going to fail!

Despite the tax issue you have to get used to having shorter record times anyway with HD MP4 as 50P only gives 20 minutes now not 29 minutes due to the 4GB limit ... !

Chris

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

This tax thing is beyond stupid - here is a camcorder that also takes stills for £25 and I assume no time limit as it's a 'camcorder' - as the price is inclusive of this extra tax how much can this bloody tax be!!!

They must be aware it's an issue for us professionals so i'm guessing there's more to it. It means sadly I'll never use anything but my Handycams for locked off cameras

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Compact-Camc...amcorder+cheap

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

4.9% apparently, see here https://www.ephotozine.com/article/e...l-cameras-5905.

It still makes no sense and I am finding it hard not to say something political here!

Dave

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Which Sony's are you referring to? I never had any issues copying files from mu sony camera's, split files where always joined back automatically without frame loss and it was as easy as copy/paste. Never had to reset a recording every 15 minutes because of that.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

So for the sake of £25 if the camera costs £500, Panasonic are willing to lose my business. Given 2 of my cameras are set to wide angle, making the FZ1000's variable aperture a non issue, without the clip limit, the camera would be high on my list. If you're going to do a bridge camera, why not just add the 4.9% to the cost. Think how many more they'd sell for that feature alone.

I wonder if there's heat issues also at work, problems guaranteeing it stays recording and doesn't cut out if it overheats. But then small camcorders don't suffer from this, so it still makes no sense.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Reading that makes it even more ridiculous. Bringing it back to the FZ1000 which is what this thread is about, adding 4.9% to the typical price would increase it by £25-29. Is that actually going to drastically reduce sales of the camera? No of course not! Anybody deciding to purchase a camcorder instead of the FZ1000 because of the recording limit, like perhaps Pete, is going to be paying tax on it anyway.

The only possible reason that I can think of is that Panasonic and others do not want cameras like the FZ1000 to take sales away from their camcorder offerings at the semi pro end of the range in The EU. But even that explanation makes little sense if they are selling uninhibited cameras to the rest of the world.

Might be worth a new thread to discuss the ridiculous tax situation.

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Just had delivery today of a collapsible rubber lens hood' with a view to mounting a variable ND filter and still being able to adjust it. The hood is great, but unfortunately as the camera lens is fairly wide angle, the hood is visible as a black ring around the frame on full wide angle, so no use to me. Just thought I would post as a warning.

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

That was worrying me too! I have the Fotga slimline variable ND's that don't vignette at all BUT I would think that a hood with a 67mm screw fitting might just cause an issue. I wonder if one can get/fabricate a hood that could clamp around the outside of the ND filter?? Either that or would it help if you screwed a nice low profile thread adapter ..something like 67 - 80mm ?? and then put an 80mm hood on that ...From memory the rubber hoods are round are they not? Maybe a petal hood that has more "space" on the sides might help??

Ok as a bit of help, my ND's are 70mm OD and only 5mm thick..The Panny hood is actually 69mm across the open end and if I tape the Panny hood to the filter it doesn't vignette at all but boy, it's super close .. Just 1mm offset (sticky tape doesn't hold very well at all) and you can see the hood on the LCD so to be 100% clear one needs something like a 72mm hood that we can somehow clamp to the outside of the Variable ND filter....How far do your ND's protrude from the lens when screwed in Roger?? More than 5mm??

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

I'm still waiting for the adjustable ND to arrive, so can't answer that yet, all I have that's adjustable is a 62mm polarising filter which is only about 3 mm.

Following your comments on the LED light at about 2 metres, I have been investigating the auto exposure and wondered if you had played around with the settings. I have found a massive difference between the spot exposure and the centre weighted exposure, so would think that if you used spot exposure for you close LED filming, you wouldn't have the burnout on faces.

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Thanks Roger

Actually it's not at all bad on video ..if I make the light too bright then faces blow out but with the balance just right and no huge distances between subjects the led light works very well. Stills are where it fails! On a still frame the light dropoff is really bad and you get a dark rim around the image and still faces are blown out in comparison. I think sadly that if you want to avoid high ISO's then a bounced flash is better OR a bounced LED light so one gets even lighting ... I think an umbrella would actually work quite well but of course be totally impractical. The easiest solution is a TTL flash I would think! Metz make one that has roughly the same Guide Number as the Panasonic FL36 (also the Olympus FL36 ..which is identical) I might try one. However for now I'll still use the Nikon setup at receptions but the FZ is worth a shot for outdoor photoshoots.

What variable ND did you end up buying?? I got two Fotga 62mm ones as Colin Rowe said they worked very well!!

Chris

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

I ordered the Fotga 62mm one also on Colin's recommendation.

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Excellent! At least we have a common goal towards solving the lens hood issue ..but the inside of the hood needs to be an absolute minimum of 70mm otherwise the lens will most definitely see the hood edges at full wide so if we use a filter conversion ring is will probably need to jump up quite a bit and be as slim as possible ...at least 67mm to 75mm or even more. Otherwise I guess there is no real harm in using the camera without a hood surely???

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

A bit of a moot point I would say Chris.

I believe in always using the correct hood for any lens for the reasons you will already know, but with modern zoom lenses and wider and wider angles of view, a hood can only be correct at min. zoom. Three questions I ask myself 1) Is the hood doing any good at any focal length other than minimum, 2) At what angle is light considered extraneous and 3) Is it a fixed angle.

Maybe modern lens design and coatings have changed things, but the answers I have to my questions are 1) No, 2) It's different for each focal length and 3) No. So if I were to guess at an answer to your question it would be probably not, give it a try.

Dave

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Hi Dave

Apart from sunsets and such we usually don't purposely shoot with light coming into the lens! It always open shade if we can and stray light sources off to the side or behind us ... the real problem with a variable ND is that you have to get your fat fingers around the outer ring to adjust it so a close fitting hood doesn't allow this anyway. The more correct question here is can I find a hood that will do it's job AND allow me to get into the filter to rotate it?? Rails and a matte box is an overkill

Chris

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

I agree with Dave, that for most normal circumstances a lens hood is really superfluous, most of the time. Along with a big flash, it just makes you look more professional than Uncle Bob with his expensive camera but no accessories :-)

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

I don't tend to use a lens hood as the ND filter I have makes adding one very difficult. However reading this thread and mindful of some situations where I have used my hand as one to limited effect, I have just purchased a rubber lens hood that extends larger than my nd filter. I'm thinking, though can't be sure if it'll work, that I can somehow glue the hood to the front piece that rotates. As I have a very wide nd filter - 77mm thread with my lenses 58mm, I feel vignetting won't be a problem, especially as I shoot 4K and theres a higher crop factor than for HD. Of course, how secure this bit of glue work will make the hood, remains to be seen.

Before I attempt this I shall have to decide whether the inconvenience of having this hood permanently attached is greater than the few occasions where light has been a problem. There maybe other ways to adapt it, but I'll see when it arrives.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

As my new collapsible rubber lens hood is of no use at the moment, I think I will try taking a pair of sharp scissors to it to see if I can cut it back. If I screw it up it won't be any more useless than it is now!

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Really Chris? Don't you want to think about that a bit more?:-)

As I understand it extraneous light, as opposed to superfluous light sources, is any light reaching the lens that is not used in forming the image, light from outside the field of view which reflects off the front element and which bounces around inside the lens tube, however well designed it is, reducing the contrast of the image. Hence the need for the correct lens hood.

That is now impractical due to the almost universal use of the zoom lens. A hood which is correct at, say, 25mm minimum zoom is totally useless when the lens is zoomed to 200mm. A matte box and French flags would be OK.

Here's a new DIY project for you Chris, make an electronically controlled lens hood that extends as you zoom the lens and stays correct all the way through the zoom range!

Dave

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

DIY auto hood zoomer???Yeah right!! I have petal hoods on my Nikons and I still had a bit a stay light coming in from the right when I did my DVD cover shots. The problem with the Nikons is that the viewfinder is optical via the mirror so quite often you never see any flares so I might get them on stills. On video the Panasonics are all electronic so what you see is what you get and if a flare is likely you will see it!! That's why I'm far less likely to get any flares because I can see and avoid them. I definitely need hoods on the Nikons but they still don't work that well..I consider them more lens protectors .. I'd rather bust a hood than a lens!

I'm still going Steve's route so if I have to superglue a hood to the rotating part of the ND, so be it!! It will also make the ND easy to turn!!! however I'm still contemplating alternatives ..Outdoors I seldom, if ever shift from full wide and if we do have a ceremony with the sun in the lens I just shift camera position

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

European camcorder import duty is only 4.7% on the wholesale price so probably not even £25 on an FZ1000 or £50 on an RX10. However 99% of the customers who buy these cameras are not wedding videographers so don't give a toss about a 29'59" limit.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Hi Nigel,

I think you are missing the point here as it applies to all digital stills cameras that shoot video, so anyone using a DSLRs for video in the EU will have the same restriction, including those that use them fior weddings, theatre productions, seminars and any continuous sequences of video greater than 30 mins. Given that quite a lot of photographers are also now shooting video for weddings, I am not sure where you got your figure of only 1% of all digital camera purchasers wanting more than 30 mins video, but I would be interested to see the source, as I am somewhat dubious.

I'm pretty certain that any camera purchaser knowing that his camera had been intentionally inhibited for recording time in just the EU, would opt for it being removed given the choice.

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

99% is just my guesstimate. The vast majority of people buying these cameras are buying them to shoot stills & won't ever shoot video. Apart from wedding videographers nobody uses locked off unattended cameras except wedding videographers when they are shooting theatre shows or dance recitals. The point is that it's only low end single shooters who will ever be troubled by a 30 minute clip length.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Who said anything about locked off cameras? you still get 29' 59" where locked off or manned ! We'll just have to agree to disagree :-)

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Okay take a camera like the GH4, what percentage do you think have purchased it for video compared to photo. How many have purchased it for both. I agree with canon and Nikon its more likely photo, but there are other brands which are I'd say are more for video than photo. The GH4 I know was used by Top Gear for aerial shots. Don't you think the clip limit bothers them. They're hardly low end shooters. I've also seen GH4 footage in other TV productions that use drones for aerial shots. It's high codec and small size making it ideal for such productions. Now I suppose it can be argued that for aerial drones, a clip limit isn't an issue as most flights would be done by then. However I know one production company that purchased abroad for the very reason to remove the clip limit from the camera. So I'm afraid your comments aren't quite supported by genuine facts.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Hey Guys, don't want to sound rude, but I started the other thread on the 29 minute clip limit as the discussion was starting to take over this USING THE FZ1000 thread.

Your comments on the clip limit would be excellent, very much in context and better placed on the other thread :-)

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

Received the Fotga variable ND filter today. and testing it in the garden seems to be a useful addition to the kit. The only problem at the moment is that I can't get my circular polarising filter off the camera, it has a very narrow serrated grip about 1.5mm wide and it has just jammed onto the filter thread. I even tried forcing it round with a tiny screwdriver but it is jammed solid. Any suggestions?

Roger

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

I'd reply, but I'm worried further down the line you'd decide this topic isn't related to 'Using the FZ1000' and tick me off for it. :)

But to take the risk; all I can think of is some WD40. Apply it around the edges and leave it to soak in, then gently turn back and forth to see if it dislodges itself. Failing that you may have to remove the glass and apply the WD40 within the circular chamber. That's all I can think of to remove something like this.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

I have had this happen with many filters, on countless cameras. Try gently pushing in, or pulling out the filter, very lightly, and unscrewing at the same time. As you probably know when fitting a filter always twist into the thread anti clockwise until it seats, then screw in, never overtighten

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

NO NO NO on the WD40, the possibility that it would get drawn into the "works" via capillary action and ruin something is quite high (IIRC the FZ1000 is not "weather sealed"?)

They make grips for kitchen use for jars, that's one option, a suction cup that was about the same diameter as the filter glass might work (just spitballin' that option). ANY camera shop will have wrenches specifically for this, it's not uncommon... and you need to get a grip around as much of the diameter as possible, depending on the jam.

Where you can't get a grip with bare hands, you've got to get a "little" better grip one way or another - not a lot, just enough to get the filter loose... "lubrication" is not a good answer, grip IS.

Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
 

You won't get ticked off Steve, well not unless you use five pages to discuss filter removal when there is another filter removal thread :-)

Thanks for the tips though guys, I think a camera shop with the proper grips would be best, the trouble is finding one anywhere near here :-(. The filter I have jammed on is one of those rotatable ones, so I can\'t get grips on the front part, only the narrow serrated big between the outer bit of the filter and the front of the lens. I put it on with gentle finger pressure to make it easy to get off, so why it jammed I have no idea.

Roger