If anyone in the UK is thinking of buying an FZ1000 there are some reconditioned ones with full warranty from the official Panasonic outlet store on eBay for just £499. Despite my new RX10m2 at that price I am tempted to get one myself just for the 400mm equivalent zoom. Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ1000EB Bridge Camera 20.1MP 16x Optic Zoom 4K Video Record | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Panasonic-LUMIX-DMC-FZ1000EB-Bridge-Camera-20-1MP-16x-Optic-Zoom-4K-Video-Record-/201401867427?hash=item2ee47c9ca3)

If anyone in the UK is thinking of buying an FZ1000 there are some reconditioned ones with full warranty from the official Panasonic outlet store on eBay for just £499. Despite my new RX10m2 at that price I am tempted to get one myself just for the 400mm equivalent zoom. Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ1000EB Bridge Camera 20.1MP 16x Optic Zoom 4K Video Record | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Panasonic-LUMIX-DMC-FZ1000EB-Bridge-Camera-20-1MP-16x-Optic-Zoom-4K-Video-Record-/201401867427?hash=item2ee47c9ca3)

I bought my second one from a Dutch supplier that I regularly use, very fast delivery, reliable and easy to contact. Their new price is only £29 more than the EBay refurbished ones. Search results for: 'LUMIX FZ1000' (http://www.photospecialist.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=LUMIX+FZ1000&catid=2)

Roger

Hi Roger

I will at the next wedding it's one of just only 3 in 2015/16 that I'm not doing the photography too so while the Asian photogs are fussing with the couple I will test out the camera at the reception on the guests. I'm not really concerned at all with good outdoor shots or even well lit indoor shots but I do need good stuff at the reception and that's where flash comes into play and I can find nothing for the camera that equals the Nikon SB600 units we currently use on our Nikon still cameras. We work hard and fast at receptions so I definitely need a TTL flash that thinks for itself. Wifey does an open photobooth with a big black backdrop so I also need a flash unit that will not interpret the background as "more light is needed" and then end up with overexposed people ...the Nikon flashes have that built in.

Chris

Hi Chris,

We don't do a photobooth, but at last week's wedding I was asked to take some extra group and friends pics in the evening. I always carry a reflective umbrella and stand with a bright low energy studio bulb just in case. I set one up in front of a wood panelled wall to the side front and tried the FZ1000 without flash. It handled it beautifully and with a much warmer feel to using a flash.

Roger

Thanks Roger

Actually we only run an "open" photobooth so it is a simple black backdrop on stands and a bunch of props. When I bought the backdrop and stands kit off eBay it also came with two light stands, 2 x white umbrellas and 2 x 125W CFL lamps .... It would probably work a lot better although not as convenient as a flash. We, of course, don't get any shadow issues even with direct flash with the black backdrop!! I must set it up in the camera room at home and try my camera with it ..It will probably work very well. I wonder how the camera will work with a video light on it?? That might give me nice stills and provide easy on camera lighting... I'll experiment tomorrow at the reception too !!

Chris

Claire and I have both got separate joint packages tomorrow, so we will both be experimenting with the LUMIX. We will both have studio lights if necessary and a 132 led on camera light in the camera bag.

I do find if I use the camera light for portraits, that they aren't keen on looking directly at it, plus the light is too even like a direct flash. I prefer off camera lighting if I can, to give a little less light to one side of the face and more depth to the shot. With your open photo booth setup, I can see that the shot is all about the moment the flash is fired, but on the other hand, people do seem to like posing in the fixed light as well and you don't have the blinking problem.

Roger

Hi Roger

We used to use flash for fills on outside shoots but the closed eyes is a nightmare!! I just shoot without it now as you have to delete so many pics ...even if you switch the flash off the mere presence of seeing a flash unit on the camera (they don't know that it's turned off) they seem to automatically close their eyes when you say 1-2-3 .... With the FZ's decent ISO I don't see why reception shots couldn't use an LED light for a fill ....I'm shooting video at the tables and getting brilliant results without any lighting so I cannot see why stills shouldn't be as good??? Yeah for the booth I have CFL lights so no problem there and it saves using flash too ..funny on the booth they don't seem to close their eyes!!!

I would appreciate your comments on shooting guests at the reception with the FZ1000 without any extra lighting ..I can do a couple but mine tomorrow is only video so I don't want to upset the photog!!!

Chris

Shooting the guests without lighting is a difficult one Chris as it obviously depends on the lighting levels in the room. I would be prepared to take the camera to ISO 3200 if necessary, but if you may want to crop probably a bit lower. The automatics handle the evening guest shots well, but I would put a stop on exceeding ISO3200. Using the biggest aperture and a light flash works well so that you can maintain a lower ISO, but you know that anyway and a medium LED for quick round the tables works well to avoid closed eyes.

Last week, Claire used mainly ISO 125-200, with 50-100th shutter and a wide flash setting and just tilted the flash up and down to vary the intensity depending on the range.

Roger

Thanks Roger

Enjoy your wedding too! I have lots of time on this one actually since they have their own photog!! so ceremony at 2:00pm today (civil one so that will be done and dusted by 2:30pm) then after yje photog has done groups I'll do a quick stedicam shoot at the same venue (it has nice gardens) I'm going to shoot some general stills on the FZ so I can see how it performs on a sunny day (we have blue skies today and 26 degrees C) Then at the reception I'll play with some inside shots on the Lumix too It's one of the weddings where I would have rather have done photos too as I'll be done by 3:00pm latest and the guests only arrive at the reception at 6pm ..Will probably pop home for a cuppa to kill some time!

Chris

Claire and I both had long photo/video weddings today with both taking around 11 hours base to base. Claire used the FZ1000 for all her stills and two Panny video cams for the video. She came back buzzing about how good the LUMIX is for stills, and how she used the auto settings for virtually all the outside shots and M for evening and flash.

My experience for the stills was virtually identical, although I managed to get some sunset shots mixing manual flash into both auto and manual settings. For the first time I also used the FZ1000 as the main video camera with one of the Panny videocams as a B cam.. I took a decision to leave the LUMIX on IA+ for the church service, using the sub record button for the video. This meant that I was able to take silent stills without stopping the video, as the vicar didn't want any flash or shutter noises and absolutely no moving about.

A quick look at the stills in the church confirms that they look very sharp and it was so easy to concentrate on the camerawork for video and just press the stills shutter whenever I felt it was a good stills opportunity. A couple of times on changing shots to congregation, I found the camera focusing on the wrong part of the scene due to people at different distances, so rather than stopping the video, I changed to manual focus while recording. I got the focus direction wrong on several occasions, which gave a couple of seconds of searching time, but easily covered with the B cam. I'm not used to needing to restart the recording after 29 minutes, but found I could do that during a hymn.

During the formal photo session, I continued to avoid the creative video mode so that I could use the sub button for video and main shutter for stills, so alternated between them for a while. Back at the reception, I checked the quality of the stills taken while videoing and decided that they were high enough quality to continue using that method when I wanted video of the same scene. That meant that at times I could set up the poses as I would for stills only, but then shoot the video and take the still without having to reset anything. The only things to be aware of is that only a certain number of stills can be taken during any continuous video take, I'll have to check how many, but it means that I missed a couple of shots during the ceremony, so will have to use screen grabs. The video frame is also tighter than the stills frame, so some of the border is lost if you start the video record while you are set up for stills.

For the first dance and following dances, all lights were out apart from disco lights and for the first time, I felt that the footage was sharper than the Panny video cams, which I had paralleled up just in case.

Altogether it was a great learning day, and although I felt a little uncomfortable initially using just the FZ1000 for much of the day for video and stills, I gradually got used to it and it made things so much easier than using still and video cameras on my double tripod mount. The quality of both video and stills throughout the day was amazingly good, with the auto white balance continuously getting it right. It was a bright sunny day with a white marquee, blue skies, white puffy clouds and lots of grass, but auto exposure only needed the occasional gain adjustment. I have never taken so many stills where almost every shot was right, focus, superb colour and exposure.

For a solo shooter it is a godsend and although I seem to be overflowing with superlatives, it is without doubt the best camera I have ever owned for convenience and quality both in video and stills. There are a few things like the zoom, battery door and lack of headphone monitoring that could be improved, but nothing that is a major problem. I'm not sure what Panasonic will add when they eventually upgrade it, but it can only enhance what I consider to be an excellent little camera.

Roger

Hi Roger

Many thanks for that excellent summary! My wedding on Saturday turned out very well also ... I still used Creative Video Mode for all the video and apart from a silly mistake (somehow I had accidentally switch the focus to manual and didn't notice on the A-Camera ) Amazingly enough that clip was sharp and perfectly focussed ..I only found out it was in manual when I looked thru the EVF and saw the groomsman high lighted in blue focus peaking so when the opportunity arose I quickly changed it. Our reception was REALLY low light ...A few dimmed lights and then candles !! I tossed my video light on the camera and turned the dimmer to full and was stunned to see the image totally blown out ...I used the light now and again in a couple of dark corners with guests otherwise it wasn't needed. If I still had my Sony's the light would have been a lot brighter as no light would have resulted in a dirty brown image!! I did speeches in front of the bridal table and the only light was two small halogens in the ceiling yet the camera handled that lighting perfectly!! I did have a short time to "play" so I took stills with just the dim video light ..images were good BUT shutter speed hovered between 1/10 and 1/15th at best so one gets a few blurry shots which isn't practical! If I turn up the video light it just blows out the skin tones so definitely indoor stills need a flash to light the whole scene correctly and keep the shutter up at 1/60th at least otherwise camera shake is going to happen especially handheld shots. Our next wedding is a "normal" one with us doing photos too so I'll definitely use the FZ1000 for the photoshoot!!

Only had one tiny disaster at the wedding ...I was checking the one cam during the ceremony and put the 2nd cam on a granite wall where it promptly slid down the rough stone face where a nice guest caught it BUT it scratched my LCD at the bottom!! I wish I could get the tough plastic covers that my Nikons have!!!

Chris

Hi Chris,

Seems like we are both being continually surprised by this camera :-) I'm sure the Sony RX10 probably stacks up pretty well also, but Noa seems to be finding some odd problems. I am very happy that I stuck to Panasonic and my background doubts about the ability of the FZ1000 against the price, have been quickly erased.

On the matter of your LCD screen, I bought a pack of 6 iPad screen protectors a couple of years back and all my cameras have a screen protector cut from the sheets which seem to protect against scrapes and knocks. I've only used 2 sheets for 8 cameras so far.

Claire took on our first ever photo shoot only today, it was for a christening following a recommendation from a wedding joint package that we filmed. She came back a little while ago, saying that it was so easy compared with filming video. All she took was an FZ1000, flash and a few batteries, no tripod and a packed lunch. She took 500 stills, and used the same battery for the camera throughout. She didn't even need her lunch as they invited her to join the finger buffet afterwards.

She's now had her head turned and wonders why photographers seem to get so wound up when it is so easy!! She wants to get stuck in to pushing the photography only package as she thinks it is a walk in the park compared with the joint package or video only package. She took loads of closeups and loads of discrete telephoto shots of guests and now questions why photographers cart around several cameras and various lenses. I just shrugged and smiled :-)

Roger

She took loads of closeups and loads of discrete telephoto shots of guests and now questions why photographers cart around several cameras and various lenses.

When you see a photo taken with a full frame body coupled with a few fast primes you know why they do :) There is not much of a comparison to a f2.8 to f4.0 lens on a 1 inch sensor camera. Taking pictures is very convenient while shooting video and can enable you to do offer video/photo at the same time though, I only take some quick snapshots during the photoshoot for my dvdbox prints, I don't even have a clue if my rx10 can do video and photo at the same time, I guess not?

I agree with Noa, your camera is no doubt convenient and takes great stills and video. However just as you can see the difference between the FZ1000 and your old video cams, so others can see the difference between the FZ1000 and full frame photos.

It's great you love the camera and I'm sure it sits well within your style, but it's a solution to your needs.

I agree Noa that a full frame camera with top quality glass will give superior results, but the vast majority of photographic work that we would take on just doesn't require that level of photography or investment. If we were shooting magazine covers, fashion photography or high end photography of any sort, we wouldn't consider using the FZ1000 with it's 1" sensor, but for the sort of work we do it is brilliant, so I see Claire's point of view.

Roger

Cross posts Steve, but the same reply as to Noa, it suits our purposes perfectly at the moment.

Roger

Roger, my comment is no criticism of your style and camera choice, more on the remark about why other Photographers cart such gear about that your wife made and which you shrugged and smiled. I imagine done so in jest, unless you think the FZ1000 can top say the 5d Mark iii for quality stills. Of course it costs more and for your package, not a worthwhile investment. However for other Photographers, it's an investment worth its weight in Gold.

I agree Noa that a full frame camera with top quality glass will give superior results, but the vast majority of photographic work that we would take on just doesn't require that level of photography or investment. If we were shooting magazine covers, fashion photography or high end photography of any sort, we wouldn't consider using the FZ1000 with it's 1" sensor, but for the sort of work we do it is brilliant, so I see Claire's point of view.

Roger

That's what I said about using this camera as an easier way to add on photos to your package because you can take photo's while shooting video. But I still don't see Claire's point of view. All wedding photographers I have worked with the past 10 years carry full frame bodies, f2.8 zoomlenses and f1.2 or f1.4 primes, some high end photogs I know only work with a 35 and a 85mm prime lenses. They don't carry all that weight to look important, you just can't deny the magic full frame photography can have and it's not only a requirement for magazine covers or fashion shoots, it's expected at weddings as well. Ofcourse you can do a photoshoot with a bridge camera but I"m sure you are then targeting a client with a lower budget.

I certainly wouldn't even suggest that the FZ1000 could top a 5dMk III for image quality, but it will beat it hands down for flexibility and convenience and it will record in 4K.

Also of course, if someone is looking to get started up in wedding video and photography at the end of the market where the most work is, they would need a pair of Canons and lenses if they want that quality of equipment, or for the same price they could have a dozen FZ1000s, or two FZ1000s, an editing suite, sliders, jib, a couple of GoPros, tripods and probably a second hand car to carry it in :-)

Roger

I"m pretty sure if they would invest in full frame camera and primes and do photography only and if they are really good at what they do that investment is quickly earned back. They probably will also easily make more then double for photography only then what we charge for combo packages. For a photographer this is a necessary investment, for a videographer not, that's why a bridge camera has more possibilities for us because we can more easily combine doing 2 disciplines but it will not be at the same level as a photog that shoots with full frame only and that's the reason we charge less for it.

Flexibility and convenient is good for me, quality of shots is good for the clients. I'd suffer my inconvenience for the sake of a good shot for the client. Okay it's back to your opinion Roger of faffing around on the arty stuff and missing the shot. However those of us who go further don't feel one necessary leads to the other.

I'm not sure someone new to the industry should jump in and offer both. By all means learn the trade with one, then dip into the other. Photo and Video are 2 disciplines. There are plenty incapable of mastering one, goodness knows the mess if they start up and try 2.

Thing is Steve you are only partly right, because although there are great photographers out there and great videographers with fantastic gear there are also many more who buy fantastic gear and come up with poor photos and flat boring videos. Believe me, I have come across many in my years, being the main reason that we added photography to our packages. Although I have been a reasonable photographer for decades, I only added it to our services after seeing some of the poor work that some photographers managed to achieve inspite of some amazing cameras and lenses, and many video clients asking for stills from the video because of poor photography.

A camera like the FZ1000 doesn't stifle artistic creativity, but if you want very low light or very shallow DOF pics, or maybe want to blow up to extreme enlargements, then you cannot beat a full frame top of the range cam. Great photography though is as much about the framing and capturing that different angle or mood as it is about the camera, and the FX1000 is very capable of superb pics in the right hands and with the right conditions. Those conditions can be quite wide ranging and enough to satisfy the requirements of the vast majority of weddings enquiries that I would expect us to get in the medium price range.

I wouldn't expect or encourage newcomers to move straight into photography and video packages unless they are experienced and competent at both, so I should have put 'video and/or' photography in the previous post, although it was more to make a point of emphasising what is possible and the huge differences in costs, rather than an encouragement to leap in with both feet and no experience.

Roger

That's what I said about using this camera as an easier way to add on photos to your package because you can take photo's while shooting video. But I still don't see Claire's point of view. All wedding photographers I have worked with the past 10 years carry full frame bodies, f2.8 zoomlenses and f1.2 or f1.4 primes, some high end photogs I know only work with a 35 and a 85mm prime lenses. They don't carry all that weight to look important, you just can't deny the magic full frame photography can have and it's not only a requirement for magazine covers or fashion shoots, it's expected at weddings as well. Ofcourse you can do a photoshoot with a bridge camera but I"m sure you are then targeting a client with a lower budget.

Most but not all of the wedding photographers that I encounter do other types of photography to maintain their income, and use the equipment that they have already invested in to photograph weddings. They also work in ways that they are familiar with, some using light meters to assess the lighting conditions and setting the camera for every single shot and assistants to hold reflectors and take backup shots. Others have well paid careers and can afford expensive gear and want to be seen to look professional for weekend weddings even if the results are sometimes amateur.

I am not suggesting that they could do everything with a single bridge camera, but I am suggesting that a large number of weddings can't afford those types of photographers, or don't want hours spent on painstaking photography. Many prefer to have some lovely posed and romantic shots mixed with casual shots taken throughout the day and have the time to enjoy their day and their guests. Some want and expect the traditional time consuming photography and are prepared to pay for it, but there is a whole new market developing with the smartphone generation who are looking for something quicker, less upfront and affordable, but still giving them the opportunity of a romantic canvas and pictures on the wall. That's what cameras like the FZ1000 and others are starting to offer with speed and convenience, but maintaining acceptable quality and that is the market we target.

Claire is entitled to her own opinion and has also often seem some of the poor offerings, so from that point of view she is often absolutely right. She is also a very imaginative and capable photographer and videographer, so who am I to disagree with her!

Roger

It's always about equipment and what camera should I buy and over here I see variations from one photographer with a Canon 550D camera, kit lens and pop up flash (yep just one camera too..I bet the professional decal job on her car cost more than the cameras) and then we have a mate of mine who shoots with nothing less than 3 x Nikon D4S bodies and a pile of lenses..nothing less PLUS an assistant too! Both take photos and both spend 8 hours on site. The difference is one charges $600 and one charges $4000 .... "you pays your money" My friend Rob (he is the one with the D4S kit) also imports his albums from Italy and his traditional prints are hand done over on our East Coast whilst our enthusiastic young Canon 550D lady gives the bride a USB and is done.

There is no bad still (or video) camera ..all of them do a satisfactory job and your gear ultimately will point you towards either the budget bride or the "daddy is paying" bride ... I have seen my mate Rob's work and yes it is stunning but you do pay through the nose for it!! It all depends on what the bride is prepared to pay for and wise photogs should have equipment that match their pricing ...No-one in their right mind (video or photo) is going to spend $50,000 on cameras and lenses and then stay with budget $500 wedding budgets.

Thing is Steve you are only partly right, because although there are great photographers out there and great videographers with fantastic gear there are also many more who buy fantastic gear and come up with poor photos and flat boring videos. Believe me, I have come across many in my years, being the main reason that we added photography to our packages.

Roger, you keep picking on bad professionals to justify your reasons whilst ignoring that there are plenty of good professionals using the same gear to great effect. I see plenty of guests with more expensive gear than yourself, do I think they're getting better photos, no.

So you offered Photography because of the bad ones you saw, how very noble of you. Why not extent this to bad djs, Wedding planners and caterers. Of course the fact that there's money to be made from dual packages, the satisfaction of applying something new and creative after many years working in video, offering something competitive and different to other Video professionals and not working with a Photographer who gets in your way played only a small part in your decision. :)

Now I'm not disagreeing that there are bad Professionals out there, but on the other side of the coin, there are also plenty of damn good ones. Besides I'm not sure what criteria you judge by. What is bad to you could just be a style that is different to your own. You can come across as overly critical of others work and style.

Now I'm not doubting that the FZ1000 is for your service an excellent choice. Working both video and photo, it's better to have a bridge camera as this is the type of work they target. However to even suggest that those photographers who work photo only are foolish to have so much expensive gear where a FZ1000 will do, and justify it by saying there are bad ones using said gear seems a bit warped and one sided. One can own a Canon 5D Mark iii and still work to your style of Wedding Photography. I know, I've seen it. It's a versatile camera that can be adapted to different methods of shooting from quick shots to studio work.

Great gear is great gear, put it in the hands of the capable and they will do better work with it. I mean do I think that a C300 is a bad choice of camera, because a student used it and got crap footage. Not in the slightest. I love my GH4, but it's choice for me was as much about budget as it is about function. If I had the money I'd own a C300. Would it make me a better videographer, no. Would it be a better tool for some of the work I do. Absolutely. Alas I don't have the money for it, so my GH4 makes do. :)

Hi Steve

Shucks don't you ever sleep?? It's 1pm here and we are 8 hours ahead of you so am I right saying your last post was at 4am?? Yikes ..I'm sleeping that time of the morning!!

I do agree with you, but not entirely ! Good gear should give you better results. My two Sony EA-50's gave me results that were not worth writing home about and they cost me $4000 each. They were OK but never blew me away whereas the little FZ1000 blows it out of the water ..that of course doesn't mean everyone should sell their $4000 cameras and buy $1000 ones ... Maybe it was me with the Sony's but I just prefer Panasonic sharpness and colour ..if I wanted to up it would be a GH4 not a Canon.

I think the bottom line here is the results and especially for photography I still get better results on my Nikons indoors because they work better for me. In the old days your professional status was based on how big your camera was not how good it was. If I was doing photography only I would still gravitate to something like a Nikon D4S and I would charge accordingly (since the bodies alone are $6K+++)

This discussion all comes down to equipment cost versus profit and if you are selling el-cheapo photo shoots it makes sense to pay less for a camera so you actually do make a profit ...Selling photos for $500 would be very stupid if you had two 5DIII's and a batch of lenses that would cause a huge hole in your bank account. For the very same reason as our photos are add-ons rather than a package we get by on two Nikon D90's and for what the brides pay they give a good result but more importantly a good profit!

Hi Chris, yep 4am. Needed something do. Staying overnight in a hotel after a days filming. 4-5 hours of sleep and I'm wide awake and no editing to keep me busy.

As for your gear you have to remember that with 4K, quality has risen in the video industry. I expect the new Panasonic DX200 to demonstrate the new $4000 standard or whatever price it is. Plus I agree, paying more doesn't lead to better image. Canons new XC10 costs more than the GH4, but not I'd say with an equivalent jump in quality. I'm not a fan of Canon and although I love their colour science and ergonomics, features and price is not so good.

Ultimately it's how you use the gear that counts. The GH4 can be laughed at for his size, one Sony rep at a Wedding I filmed, compared it to a toy camera. However it's the image that ultimately is how you'll be judged.

If I was shooting video and photo I'd go for a bridge camera, probably the rx10 to be honest. Shooting just photo, I'm not sure but probably Nikon's best in the £2000 to £3000 category. I prefer Nikon's image to Canon.

I wouldn't use a bridge camera for pure photo service as its big advantage of offering both functions would be wasted, whereas a dedicated photo camera would be more suited to the job. I shoot video, so I suppose a dedicated video camera would be best. A GH4 may seem not to fit that criteria, but then I think few people are buying it for its photo function.

Hey Steve

Wow you will be tired later I bet!! Yeah I looked at the DVX200 as the 100 was a legend but the $4000 price point is a dream!! It looks closer to GBP3200 without your 20% VAT so down here it going to come out at around AUD$6000 a bit too much for my budget ...If I spend $12K on two cameras I need to charge a whole lot more money to justify the capital cost!! If I want to go fancier it will be a GH4 ... I started in the 80's on Panasonic with a WVP100 camera with a Saticon Tube sensor and a big NV100 recorder ...ahh!! the old days!!! My only deviation was 2013-2015 with the Sony's and I never liked the image ..it just leaves me cold!! Hopefully the DVX200 will stay with the tradition of eye popping images and decent colour ...the only ones I hated were the AC-130's ..they lost the Leica lenses and I'm sure they were made under licence in China as that was when the Tsunami hit Japan ..!! All my others have been Panasonic right thru the M series "all in one" VHS and then the MS series in Super VHS and then onto HMC series ..all brilliant!

Better get some sleep ..if I stay over I have the same issue!!!

Wow you will be tired later I bet!! Yeah I looked at the DVX200 as the 100 was a legend but the $4000 price point is a dream!!

Nah, got my 5 hours. I'll be fine. I'm considering the DVX200 for corporate work really. May have to wait for price to drop a little. Mind, the lack of constant aperture is a concern. Frankly I'd prefer a AF101 replacement that does 4K. At the moment it's just speculative. I'm still saving for a 2nd GH4 and maybe an RX10. Still on the fence about the latter.

Hi Roger again

Back to stills at receptions? I'm assuming that your flash is non TTL so in Ia mode the camera would try to expose the scene as best as it can since the pop up flash is not released so shutter would be super low (like 1/15th or less?? In this case I'm assuming you expose in manual to just a comfortable setting like the old film cameras ..say 1/60th and F2.8 and then use the flash on manual??? Do you guess what flash power to use or does your flash do a semi auto calculation?? In the old days you set your manual flash according to f stop and it worked ... then again bounce can be tricky so I think I would prefer a TTL flash ..Next wedding I'll use the Nikons at the reception but shoot stills during the photoshoot with the Lumix ..... Maybe I'm just lazy but indoors having a TTL flash is so much easier.

What is your exact methodology using the Lumix at the reception with a manual flash??

Chris

Hi Chris,

My flash is not TTL which would be a lot easier, but the one I use has variable zoom from 24-105mm and variable speed from 1-1/128. I use the camera in full manual, but prefer that anyway in variable indoor evening lighting. I usually set for ISO125, shutter 50-100th and aperture f2.8-4.00. I normally start with the flash on 1/4 and zoom 70mm and vary the light by altering the angle of the flash. Once I have a good average setting, I can just change the angle, or bounce the flash without having to change much else unless I am zooming in from further away. In that case I would I would use a more direct flash and drop the shutter speed perhaps to 40 or even 30 if the is no movement. I tend to find that once I get into a flow, I have no problems at all, although a TTL flash require less thought. I also find myself using the pop up flash if shooting things like table decorations, sometimes with the mini shield over it.

Did you say you had colour balance problems using an LED? That's not something I have found although I have only used it a couple of times and it required playing with the white balance manually.

Roger

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

Roger, you keep picking on bad professionals to justify your reasons whilst ignoring that there are plenty of good professionals using the same gear to great effect. I see plenty of guests with more expensive gear than yourself, do I think they're getting better photos, no.

So you offered Photography because of the bad ones you saw, how very noble of you. Why not extent this to bad djs, Wedding planners and caterers. Of course the fact that there's money to be made from dual packages, the satisfaction of applying something new and creative after many years working in video, offering something competitive and different to other Video professionals and not working with a Photographer who gets in your way played only a small part in your decision. :)

Now I'm not disagreeing that there are bad Professionals out there, but on the other side of the coin, there are also plenty of damn good ones. Besides I'm not sure what criteria you judge by. What is bad to you could just be a style that is different to your own. You can come across as overly critical of others work and style.


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

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

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

You do tend to oversimplify what I am saying

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. :)

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. :)

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

Roger

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

Roger

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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-Camcorder-Vivitar-DVR508HD-720p/dp/B007LK5S0E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439894715&sr=8-1&keywords=video+camcorder+cheap

...... how much can this bloody tax be!!!4.9% apparently, see here https://www.ephotozine.com/article/eu-add-import-duty-to-digital-cameras-5905.

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

Dave

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!

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.

4.9% apparently, see here https://www.ephotozine.com/article/eu-add-import-duty-to-digital-cameras-5905.

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

Dave

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.

4.9% apparently, see here https://www.ephotozine.com/article/eu-add-import-duty-to-digital-cameras-5905.

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

Dave

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

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

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??

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

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