At some point, something will come on the market that ticks all my boxes and adds even more like built in ND filter, headphone monitoring, wide ranging smooth zoom speed and easier battery accessibility on tripod, plus a price point that I can justify.
That would be the Sony RX10M2 except possibly for your last criterion. It's got super slo-mo too.

That would be the Sony RX10M2 except possibly for your last criterion. It's got super slo-mo too.

Trouble is Nigel I am really not a Sony Fan :-(

Roger

The FZ1000 is an exceptional performer in low light/high iso
FZ1000 isotest - YouTube

Like Roger I struggle getting what I want from the Sony look! Technically they are brilliant cameras and I never had a single issue with my EA-50's so the RX10 build should be just as good including the features.

Sorry I tried every Picture Profile under the sun on my Sony's and every bit of footage I shot over 3 years was adequate but just did nothing for me and I could never get the result. Put the Panasonic in standard mode with no parameter changes whatsoever and BAM ..that's what I was looking for.

Sorry Sony but I agree with Roger I'm not a Sony fan either!!

I haven't had a problem with the FZ1000 in low light and find the general judging of a camera from the spec on it's low light performance to be somewhat shortsighted. I get better low light performance from the FZ1000 than from my Panasonic video cameras that have served me well for a long time. I have only ever filmed 3 weddings in candlelight in 30 years, all 3 successfully, so it is not a great priority for me. If I have one next week and I need more light, I will talk diplomatically to the venue or DJ about raising the lighting slightly, and if that is not possible, use just enough subtle light of my own to raise the level enough for my requirements. A surprisingly small amount of extra bounced light can give great results without killing any atmosphere or blinding guests as has been suggested.

I find many more times during wedding filming where there are much more important issues for a videographer than low light. These include missing an important unexpected shot through having to change lenses, needing a deep DOF when you have a lens on for shallow DOF, having to use a portable sound recorder because the onboard audio quality is too poor to use an external mic, poor or no auto or follow focus for fast moving shots, having to carry a supply of lenses or cameras for different situations. Those are some of the things that can make using a DSLR at a wedding problematic at times. Using more than one camera with different lenses or a second shooter can certainly help of course. There are also higher spec pro video cameras that remove some of those problems, but at a premium and for someone like me who also requires good quality stills, they are not very suitable.

A camera like the FZ1000 offers a comparatively new approach to both filming and stills, with it's larger and more efficient sensor than many video cameras, good telephoto range with Leica lens, fully manual controls and very efficient and fast automatic focus, stabilisation, image levelling etc. Couple that with zebra zoning, peaking, focus assist, audio level meters, high speed filming, stills during video filming and may other latest add ons and you have a rather useful little camera. Oh and I forgot to mention 4K video with the ability to lift stills in camera from 4K video and the excellent price.

OK, so I am countering some of the negatives expressed about the camera, and I fully appreciate that many here would want to get the highest possible quality currently available from big sensor cameras for their work, rather than a camera like the FZ1000. Interchangeable lenses are also something that many prefer to work with and a camera like the FZ1000 would just not fit their requirements. There are also a number of people that may well consider this little camera for fast run and gun work like weddings, whether it is another tool in the toolkit or the main tool. The times they are a changing and it won't be long before full frame bridge cameras are making big inroads into the traditional video and still camera arenas.

Roger

Hi Roger

I wonder if it's just the price point that puts people off the camera? A lot of wedding videographers and photographers seem to think that they have to spend a fortune so they won't be mocked in the field..I had a photog boast that she was in debt to Canon's finance department so over $40,000 so for people that insist on the fanciest and the best and especially like to tell everyone about it at every opportunity, are certainly not going to be seen dead with a sub-$1000 "toy" in their gear listing.

Their loss not ours!!!

Thats about it Chris

I do agree on the price point deterring some people, it is difficult to believe that a camera at that price could be worth considering. I also think that there are other factors though including having spent a lot of time and money building up a full kit of camera and lenses to reach a specific goal. Then there is a natural reluctance to accept that something like the FZ1000 could carry out many of the tasks equally well and in some cases better than that carefully built kit at a fraction of the price.

Good glass is not cheap, frequently costing more for a lens than the FZ1000, plus it can be used with a later upgrade to a newer camera body. I see it differently, where a commitment to a particular type of lens can lock you into a limited upgrade path. I like to feel that the Panasonic gives me the quality that I need now, at a price that enables me to purchase future models that significantly add to the quality and facilities that I want without breaking the bank or locking me into a make or path.

Roger

It is interesting to read such entrenched yet narrow views. So I'm not looking to buy the FZ1000, so that makes me a gear snob eh. Really. I'm also not thinking of buying the Canon XC10, a camera of significantly greater price and for much the same reason. Lack of constant aperture in the zoom. As Chris said, he keeps his camera wide to keep the aperture at 2.8 when the venues lights are low. A restriction I'd prefer not to have.

Face the facts guys, the Sony RX10 2 outclasses the FZ1000 on features, just not on price. If other Videographers have the money and like the Sony look, why shouldn't they prefer that camera to yours. There are so many cameras on the market to choose from and your reaction is to almost feel snubbed others aren't joining you in the FZ1000 love. Do you need others to buy it to justify your choice? The FZ1000 betrays its price point, lack of NDs, no headphone socket and a poor zoom. If I can afford better, why should I buy a more restrictive camera than what I currently have. If I buy a bridge camera, I'd want it to resolve the issues of my GH4, not give me new ones. I need some internal ND filter, a long lens with a constant aperture, decent zoom, superior slomo. Or else why bother. As it is, the 29 min limit is a big cross for me.

So the FZ1000 can carry out the tasks equally well or better than the GH4 say with a zoom lens on. Interesting but narrow point of view. Also the inference that I buy to impress people with my kit. Well of course I do, natural that couples and Guests are just flocking to me to say how impressed they are by my gear. Yeah right. Actually I hate it when people do come over and discuss gear. I'm there to work, not have cosy geeky little chats. My gear is oddly enough to help me do a better job and work to the style my clients expect. Remember I'm not trying to do photo and video, just the video. My criteria is therefore quite different. I've seen a noticeable shift this year in clients expectations. Discussions about the type of shots they like I've never experienced before. Several have referenced a company called Bloomsbury as a standard they like to see from me. Okay that last bit irritates me, but an indication of how expectations for different companies can differ.

I use primes because they're the right tool for the job. I also have several zooms, used frequently when time is restricted and I need to respond to different scenarios. This idea of missing a shot as I'm changing a lens is just pure fiction, a conceit to justify your choice and opinion. I use Primes during Bridal Preps, Reception drinks, the Photo Session and Evening Dancing. I have a small bag on my person with a selection and if needed can change a lens in less than 10 seconds. I have missed shots for many other reasons like being in the wrong spot, not close enough or not even there if outside when the moment happened. Never for changing a lens. So please remove this stupid notion that using interchangeable lenses leads to missed shots. I have zooms when on the go and primes when I have the time for quality.

Now I'm sure the FZ1000 is a great little camera and handles low light well, but better than a GH4 with a 1.2 lens or a voigtlander 0.95. Those lenses have delivered quality when lights have been very low. Now I've seen my GH4 footage in low light at 2.8 and its comparable to the FZ1000, but I've also seen the footage at 1.2. It's a thing of beauty and bares no comparison.

And isn't liking the Panasonic look locking you to a particular path just as much as say investing in lenses. If you can't consider the RX10 as you don't like the look, then what's the point of all that flexibility. Chris used this flexibility to get the EA50 after a Panasonic camera and now moans about the sterile footage he got. Hardly a ringing endorsement for this ability to jump ship.

I wonder if it's just the price point that puts people off the camera?

It's not the pricepoint, the rx10 mark 1 is now also just 850 euro, half the price of a mark 2 and about 100 euro more expensive then the fz1000 but I would have no issue in getting a rx10 mark 1 because it has better videofeatures then he fz1000. Having a stepless irisring on the lens would be for me a very important feature for run and gun, also having a constant f2.8 lens is more important then a slower lens and longer zoom and being able to use a nd also makes a difference. 4k is less interesting on a camera that doesn't allow me to shoot more then 30 minutes because I only use 4k during ceremonies or speeches when I want to be able to crop the image in post.

I haven't had a problem with the FZ1000 in low light and find the general judging of a camera from the spec on it's low light performance to be somewhat shortsighted.

I don't use specs alone to judge low light, I try to find user videos that show the difference, you might have to take some reviews with a grain of salt because not all tests are done correctly but if you find a few videos that all show the same results I"m pretty sure how to assess the camera's low light performance, like in the 3 videos I posted below.

The low light performance is not bad on this camera, it's comparable with the rx10, but if I had to shoot with a f2.8 - f4 lens all day I would be in trouble in most of the venues I end up and I had to resort to a stronger videolight which I honestly want to avoid at all costs. Shooting wide all the time like Chris said would limit my options considerably, currently I shoot with a 42mm and a 75mm a lot on my gh4 at reception, it would be impossible to get nice headshot closeups with the fz1000 from a distance at f4 and I can't imagine standing a meter away from all people because I have to shoot at f2.8 with a light.

It's ok if the camera works for you two to cover an entire wedding day but it would not work for me, I need a mixture of either better run and gun camera's or camera's with fast primes for shooting in low light or to get creative shots to achieve the result I deliver now, something that would not be possible on a few fz1000's.



Panasonic FZ1000 VS GH4 Lowlight Comparison test & My Thoughts - YouTube
Low Light Test: FZ1000 VS GH4 - YouTube
Panasonic FZ1000 vs GH4 4K video low light test (not a review) - YouTube

Hi Steve

Nope it's not a narrow view at all! This thread is about the FX1000 NOT about the GH4 or the Sony RX10II .. The thread title says " Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000" so expressing our views about the camera is not at all narrow minded ..it's actually spot on topic.

Sure the Sony RX has constant aperture, is more expensive and better features and the GH4 is a LOT more expensive than the Sony and needs lots of nice lenses to be a useful tool.

I certainly appreciate the fact above that they are better cameras than the FZ1000 but this thread is NOT about them so your comments are out of place..simple as that.

If you start a thread called "Which is better for weddings GH4, RX10 or FZ1000" THEN your comments are in line with the topics and MY comments are out of place and shouldn't have been posted. This current thread is here simply because there is no forum for bridge cameras yet (which the GH and RX series do have) but bear in mind that it IS an FZ1000 thread about usage and experiences not which is better to buy.

Chris

Chris, I was responding not to general discussions on using the FZ1000, but to the following points made below, which I considered narrow minded. So yes I bring up the GH4 as that is the camera I use, but only in the context of my using interchangeable lenses, which Roger brought up.

If you want to discuss only the joys of using the FZ1000, may I suggest that you and Roger simply email each other. A thread opens itself to wider issues including those you may not like or agree with. Naturally the question of low light re the changing aperture is a significant issue for some with the FZ1000. If you're going to counter this with an opinion on interchangeable lenses and thoughts on how the FZ1000 is shunned because we Videographers want the best to avoid being mocked, don't be surprised when replies arguing the contrary appear.


I find many more times during wedding filming where there are much more important issues for a videographer than low light. These include missing an important unexpected shot through having to change lenses, needing a deep DOF when you have a lens on for shallow DOF, having to use a portable sound recorder because the onboard audio quality is too poor to use an external mic, poor or no auto or follow focus for fast moving shots, having to carry a supply of lenses or cameras for different situations.


Hi Roger

I wonder if it's just the price point that puts people off the camera? A lot of wedding videographers and photographers seem to think that they have to spend a fortune so they won't be mocked in the field.


Then there is a natural reluctance to accept that something like the FZ1000 could carry out many of the tasks equally well and in some cases better than that carefully built kit at a fraction of the price.

I see it differently, where a commitment to a particular type of lens can lock you into a limited upgrade path.

One further point, if this is indeed a using the FZ1000 thread, then its perhaps better placed in the Panasonic LUMIX GF / GH / LX Series section rather than Event Filming. Although not one of the GF, GH,LX series cameras, I'm sure adding FZ to it would resolve any inconsistency and perhaps should be taken as read until such a time as it is done, if ever. Certainly this thread has more in common with other threads in that section than in Event Filming which covers multiple cameras even if the title alludes to just one or a few of them. A recent thread on Sony rx10ii fz1000 6d 70d is now considering bmpcc being one example.

If your intention is to discuss the FZ1000 within the wider field of event filming, then I'm afraid other cameras will get a mention, if only because many here do not use the FZ1000, and in considering it will compare it to those cameras they have or want to have. Deterring such comments and all you have left is just a self congratulatory thread for you and Roger to tell each other how brilliant your new purchase is.

Steve, I don't believe I have said anywhere that the FZ1000 is a better camera than the G4 or any other particular camera, I have also gone to pains to suggest that the RX10 and the FZ1000 are probably similar in many aspects of performance. Neither have I said that people who spend lots of money on lenses and bodies are looking for snob value. I have also acknowledged that larger sensors and a choice of good glass will give quality in many instances that neither the FZ1000 or RX10 can match. The whole point of my post though was that in my particular business and Chris's much of that extra edge and quality is actually at the expense of not using it or requiring it much of the time. I do believe that the FZ1000 is easily overlooked because the price point puts in in the consumer range and is an area that pros are quite likely to ignore particularly if they have a higher spending capability and investment in other types of camera.

What I have said is that an FZ1000 and probably RX10 can achieve a number of things in a run and gun situation that many bigger cameras with interchangeable lenses often cannot achieve. My comments about interchangeable lenses sometimes causing shots to be missed are taken from other threads where users have occasionally remarked on it, as are my comments on focus and audio problems etc which are often coming up in DSLR threads and I have experienced myself.

I don't see that buying a camera that I can easily afford two of, because I like the camera and the look, locks me into that particular make, because I haven't built up a collection of lenses which you yourself mention, which limits a possible change of make in the future.

Noah -, posting a selection of low light video comparisons between the FZ1000 and other cameras is a pointless excercise, because it is of no interest whatsoever when we consider low light something that isn't a problem. Other aspects of the camera are much more important to me as again I pointed out at length. My car will reach speeds of 135mph, others go faster or slower, so what if I never use that speed anyway and it does exactly what I need, does it make the other cars better?

Chris clearly reminded posters that this thread is supposed to be about USING THE FZ1000. With the exception of Chris, me and Colin, the majority of posts however seem to be from posters who are not actually using the camera and seem to resent the fact that we feel that it is capable of doing so much to cover what other much more expensive cameras are doing MOST of the time. If the posts are not related to using the camera what is the point apart from provoking a response? I couldn't care less if others aren't interested in the camera, but would like to hear input from others that are seriously using the camera if they exist.

Roger

Cross posts again Steve.

The excerpts from Chris and my posts are showing the reasons why we have elected to use the FZ1000, not because it is a better camera in every area than others are using or as self congratulatory, but to highlight some areas with particular types of cameras that we find frustrating. I think that it is also pretty clear that we also acknowledge that there are a number of areas that the FZ1000 is not better at.

The thread was put into the events section of the forum, because that is where both Chris and I earn our living and hoped that others using this camera or contemplating using it would be able to contribute their findings and learn from ours. As we both have considerable experience over many years of all types of video and stills cameras it seems reasonable to also explain why we feel the camera is suitable to our way of working.

Anybody is able to start a thread about why the FZ1000 is not suitable for wedding and event filming and comparing it with other cameras if they wish. I really don't see the value of trying to diminish the value of the camera with argumentative discussion from those who have never used it in a thread about using it. Of course we will defend our choice of camera but that is not the point of the thread which was to start a constructive place where others can learn about and discuss the FZ1000

Roger

Roger, any thread on the use of a camera is going to invite comments from those who don't use it. Especially in this forum. Your thread title is not How useful the FZ1000 is to Event Filming, but 'Using the FZ1000'. An open thread inviting discussion on a particular camera will bring posts arguing why some have chosen not to use it. I'm sure this was not what you intended. More a love letter to your new purchase, with tips on how to make the most from it.

You can't control peoples responses and a post that argues how the fz1000 is impractical for filming is just as relevant as a post arguing why it is in a thread titled Using the FZ1000. Okay they're being argued by those not owning the camera, so feel free to dismiss them. However there's nothing in the title to suggest a lack of relevancy. When the GH4 came out, there were posts on it and comparisons both favourable and unfavourable to other cameras. That's how it is with gear.

Plus if you're going to argue why this camera is suitable to your way of working, others may wish to argue why it's not suited to their way of working. Or is that not allowed.

I'm sorry if you feel your thread has been hijacked, but forum threads invite debate. Arguments were raised here why some may shun the camera and arguments were also made on its advantages over interchangeable lenses. Don't cry fowl because you got an answer to those points that you didn't like.

I really don't see the value of trying to diminish the value of the camera with argumentative discussion from those who have never used it in a thread about using it.

It was not the intention to dimminish the camera but to put it a bit more into persepctive for other users, you first said that judging a camera from spec only on it's low light performance was somewhat shortsighted and when I provide you some real world footage that would give others users a better understanding how this camera performs you then reply that this is a pointless excercise, because it is of no interest whatsoever when you consider low light something that isn't a problem.

So if I understand you right this thread is all about you and what you think about the camera? :) I think the information I provided is very helpfull and valid for other users that might be interested in buying (and using) the camera, if they have to follow your personal opinion only I"m sure many will be disappointed, I"m sure I would be.

Thanks Roger

It's an information thread to inform others of our experiences and how we find the camera at weddings. Steve? I reckon my old Toyota is way better to drive than your brand new Jaguar .. agree??? Of course not. I have owned GH1's before and based on that camera the GH4 is miles ahead of the Panasonic especially on price ... If you want to compare cameras then rather compare the new FZ300 or similar price bracket cameras.. Dunno about in the UK but here a GH4 body will set me back $2800 and a slower than FZ lens (and shorter) (14-140 F3.5- 5.6) another $1200.00... OK so it is fair to compare a basic setup that costs $4000 against one that cost $900 (less than 25% of the price) Of course the GH4 is better it costs 4 times as much! It would be much the same as you telling me how great your GH4's are and then me telling you it's not nearly as good as my Canon C300 and L series lenses.

If you insist on doing comparisons then compare apples with apples

I do believe that the FZ1000 is easily overlooked because the price point puts in in the consumer range and is an area that pros are quite likely to ignore particularly if they have a higher spending capability and investment in other types of camera.

It's not the pricepoint, it's the lack of enough decent videofeatures for professional users, if they would sell the c100 at the same price as a fz1000 everyone would jump on it, it would not put the c100 in a conumer range because of it's pricepoint, it would just be a very good deal :)

Chris, I wasn't comparing the FZ1000 to the GH4 camera to camera, I was explaining the advantages of interchangeable lenses after Roger gave his opinion on how the fz1000 has an advantage over such equipment. Okay so I referenced the gh4 in this, but only as I use this camera.

Roger threw the gauntlet down on interchangeable lenses, about missed shots, shallow DOF. I simply picked it up. Perhaps I should have left the GH4 out if it and kept my arguments more generic to any interchangeable lens camera, my bad. However my point on how contrary to Rogers suggestions, my use of interchangeable lens doesn't lead to missed shots stands as a reply to his statement.

He has since made clear its an opinion he's gathered from others who use dslrs; however not from me I might add. Aside from that I've compared the camera more to the RX10, which although a different price can still be seen as a competitor in the way people compared the GH4 to the 5d. Mark iii when it came out. The Canon XC10 invites comparisons to the rx10 despite different prices. They serve similar functions and needs.

Bare in mind that whatever yours and Roger's motives for running this thread, its not an ego trip for you both, but a resource for others to read and evaluate this camera. In that context, opinions of a more negative aspect should be welcomed even if dismissed as the poster lacks experience with said camera. However some of my opinions such as the lack of constant aperture should carry some weight to those looking to buy this camera.

Steve I have no objection to anyone expressing a viewpoint and I certainly don't expect to have smoke blown up my backside for buying a particular camera anymore than you do. I do though get very frustrated with constantly repeated second hand opinion and sometimes dubious video sources which runs contrary to actual hands on experience which is what I would love to hear.

Any new and comparatively untested camera is going to have various theoretical discussion which is fine. It can become annoying though when you want to hear ways that people are using the camera and things they are finding out, but it all gets lost in a merry go round of disagreement about secondary issues from those that have never used it.

You may be right Steve that Chris, Colin and I are the only ones using the camera so there is no other information to share. Maybe the camera is sh*t in a plastic box and we are trying to justify our mistaken belief that it can do the job. That of course would discount our many years of experience in the wedding and events field with many different types of camera and scenarios.

I have always kept my eyes open for quicker and better ways to fulfil my client's requirements and maintain a profitable business and income. The FZ1000 is a further step on that long road for me and I assume the same for Chris and it would be great to have hands on input from others that are using it, in addition to those that aren't but are interested in the discussion. It's an open forum after all as you say Steve.

Roger

Roger, the camera is not sh*t in a plastic box. Its got much of the same tech to be found in the GH4. 4K at that price is to be commended. I think you forget many of the comments you make and some of the posts you've responded to. Even a casual negative comment on low light performance has triggered lengthy responses from you and Chris, as if sensitive to even the smallest of criticisms. These posts have generated replies and so forth.

When you make posts that include quotes from your wife as to why other Photographers bother with all their expensive gear when the FZ1000 is so small and convenient, what do you expect? Suggestions from you and Chris that the low price is putting people off is an opinion to be argued like any other. Don't like it, don't make the opinion. I have a GoPro4, which costs less than your camera in my gear and I'd buy the FZ1000 if it had a constant aperture. Pure and simple.

Low light performance in Weddings is not a secondary issue. In fact low light performance is one of the most discussed issues when it comes to camera gear. The GH4 is certainly not spared criticisms of its own in this matter. Just because I haven't used the camera, doesn't mean I can't be concerned over how the lack of constant aperture can effect performance in dimly lit venues. I've yet to see a video to prove my concerns invalid. All videos seen so far have been shot at wide zoom in low light.

If you wish to enlighten those doubters, how about showing a video that shows performance in low light when the zoom is at maximum. It would act better than pithy arguments on how interchangeable lenses bring their own shortcomings and would keep subsequent discussions to the FZ1000 and its performance.

Hi Steve

I love these (hopefully friendly) banters especially between you and Roger (I'm outclassed by you guys but I try and chip in now and again)
When I was using the EA-50 ..I would pop on the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 lens and it would stay on all night so I never had a lens issue ...Normally no changes on the A-Cam ever and one change on the B-Cam so the lens issue never came up from me.

Hopefully all our posts here will be of use to others looking for wedding cameras that have a limited budget but this thread isn't a soap box to preach about the camera at all. I find so called reviews pathetic on new arrivals so threads like this help me make informed decisions and hopefully will help others.

Noa and I both had EA-50 cameras at one stage and his posts about the camera were very helpful to me so it's nice to see a similar one here. There is a HUGE FZ1000 user base all over the world.

It was not the intention to dimminish the camera but to put it a bit more into persepctive for other users, you first said that judging a camera from spec only on it's low light performance was somewhat shortsighted and when I provide you some real world footage that would give others users a better understanding how this camera performs you then reply that this is a pointless excercise, because it is of no interest whatsoever when you consider low light something that isn't a problem.

So if I understand your right this thread is all about you and what you think about the camera? :) I think the information I provided is very helpfull and valid for other users that might be interested in buying (and using) the camera, if they have to follow your personal opinion only I"m sure many will be disappointed, I"m sure I would be.

Noa, I greatly respect you opinions and you ability, but I do think you are distorting my viewpoint somewhat. I have pointed out that for me, (I don't purport to speak for others) the low light performance of the FZ1000 is not an issue. It is better than some cameras and not so good as others, just something to work with as with all cameras.

Posting second hand comparison videos is interesting and I understand why you have posted them, but direct comparisons under identical conditions only show that particular instance and set of circumstances. There are many variables that using identical settings just don't show, for instance in the third example, the FZ1000 in my opinion looks consistently sharper and brighter than the GH4, but shows more noise at the higher ISO settings. Using the same settings on a first dance, without the 400% view, would the GH4 look too soft, or would the sharper look of the FZ1000 look clearer? On the other hand, what about different settings within the cameras, I'm quite sure that the softness and brightness could be improved on the GH4 and the noise on FZ1000 reduced with familiarity with the cameras and use of both camera's flexible dynamic range and contrast settings.

I would expect the GH4 with the bigger sensor and greater overall cost to have better low light performance than the FZ1000, but the tests are very inconclusive and don't take into account real world circumstances and operator ability. I would not be convinced on the performance in these tests, even forgetting the 3 times higher cost of the GH4 with lens, that it would handle a day of wedding filming better. If however you want to use different lenses because that is how you prefer to work then the FZ1000 is a non starter.

Of course I express my personal opinion on this thread and others are equally entitled to disagree. I also agree that you are entitled to state that others may be disappointed if they followed my and I think Chris's opinions, but that statement is based on conjecture and not first hand experience, whereas the opinions of Chris and myself are based on now using the camera at a number of different wedding environments. Mine are also based on using the camera at 5 different stage performances alongside my Panasonic video cameras.

Roger

If only I could have read posts like this one when looking for a new camera I would have been delighted. Have you ever seen an unbiased "review" on YouTube???

Even a casual negative comment on low light performance has triggered lengthy responses from you and Chris, as if sensitive to even the smallest of criticisms. These posts have generated replies and so forth.

When you make posts that include quotes from your wife as to why other Photographers bother with all their expensive gear when the FZ1000 is so small and convenient, what do you expect? Suggestions from you and Chris that the low price is putting people

If you wish to enlighten those doubters, how about showing a video that shows performance in low light when the zoom is at maximum. It would act better than pithy arguments on how interchangeable lenses bring their own shortcomings and would keep subsequent discussions to the FZ1000 and its performance.

Chris- I would hope that Steve would agree that we quite enjoy the sparring and that there is no malicious intent, firm but polite should sum it up :-)

That of course brings me to your first paragraph above, where my response would probably be 'Pot and Kettle', but also with the comment that so much repetitive focus is placed on low light performance, when for me particularly it is not a problem, but for others it obviously is.

With your second paragraph, I feel that Claire's opinion was an interesting one as she has also had a number of similar experiences to me, but gets regular glowing thanks from her clients.

Regarding posting video examples of low light performance at maximum telephoto, why on earth would I do that? In low light I would be unlikely to want to use maximum telephoto and would simply move closer to the subject. The telephoto is there if you want to use it, but if it had a 10x telephoto for instance would I need to use that and would it give f2.8 throughout the range? I may well use max telephoto in good light, but even then I rarely like to use maximum, it's a wedding, not a distant wildlife shoot. The camera does what it does exceptionally well and like all cameras, you get familiar with it and use it within it's limitations. No matter how much you spend, no camera is going to perform in the dark, It's up to the operator to use their skill and experience to get what they want from the camera, not expect the camera to do it all for them.

I use a camera to get what my clients want, not to push the extreme limits of the camera. The FZ1000 has 120fps high speed capability, but others are talking about cameras shooting HS at 240fps. That's great for slowing down the wings of a humming bird if that is your thing, but even 120fps is probably more than I need for a slowed down confetti shot or bouquet shot. Using the wider range of the 1" sensor for clean 24x intelligent telephoto is not something I need and certainly not in low light.. I also don't need the maximum stills burst rate the camera can achieve or the panoramic still shot., just horses for courses.

Roger

Chris - Roger; its banter for me. I did the same with people I've worked with face to face, some of them more friends, though people thought the bickering meant the contrary. Debate is very good fun and keeps the mind alert.

Pot Kettle black Roger, I can accuse others of my sins if its relevant. I'm well aware I make lengthy responses too, but if you wish to keep this thread on target, responding to the low light stuff with such a long response isn't going to achieve this. Better to let it pass and focus on what you want to say rather than trying to hit back.

As for you're not using longer zooms for Speeches. You're kidding right. I use 75mm regularly at Speeches. I prefer to keep further back and out of the way. 75mm is approx 6 times zoom. Even 45mm, another favourite which gives me a wider shot of the speaker and Bride and Groom is closer to 4 times and I'd imagine would drop down the aperture. I suppose I do favour more close ups, seeing the Bride's reaction - the emotion in the face. However even at 100mm, that shot is more head, shoulders and most of the body from where I'm standing and that's not too far off either. Hardly other side of the room, more partway. 25mm can cover most of the head table from my usual distance.

I should point out that distant wildlife shots usually require 400mm above. 100mm - okay 200mm equivalent is still not that close in comparison. Besides many of the issues are the same, trying to get good closeups at a distance that doesn't disturb the subject. An issue that is common to wildlife Photography and getting good unobtrusive shots of guests at a Wedding. The only difference is the wildlife are usually better behaved and less likely to get nasty if they catch you filming them.

No camera can perform in the dark, well I admit with no light at all, but how many Weddings have no lights. Most have some illumination of some kind and some gear are better at delivering at that level than others. Its not pushing cameras to their limit, just finding gear to handle it. You obviously handle it differently.

However my 1.2 lenses have saved many a tricky scenario even one Ceremony, so dark the Registrars complained afterwards they couldn't read the register. The lights were lowered as the Ceremony began, but a quick change between the Bridesmaids and Bridal entrance and I had my trusty 42.5 1.2 lens on instead of my 2.8 zoom and boy was I grateful for it.

Banter aside, everyone has a different way of doing things. I'm at full wide 99% of the time at receptions so I have F2.8 ...Our speeches here are done from either the bridal table occasionally but usually it's from a lectern and my A-Cam is on a tripod 3 metres away .. hardly a need for a 400mm zoom unless I need a CU of the guy's nose hairs. Brides have no objection to camera position up front and centre and I have the additional advantage of being able to have a shotgun mic on camera if my deskmic on the lectern fails.

With guests it's much the same ..I need audio from the camera mic so I'm at 25mm all the time and close enough so I get decent audio .. never had an issue with that either. If it's REALLY dark (black cat dark) I rig a light stand in front of the lectern with two CFL's into an umbrella high up and light the lectern but if I can I just ask the venue to lift the lights for the speeches. Again nobody seems to mind. Maybe we are just lucky to have such nice venues?? I would rather add a light or lift house lights a bit than have to struggle with low light lenses ..OK F0.95 can see in the dark almost but you only have mere inches of DOF ...one slight move of the lens and you are out of focus. Lift the house lights, shoot at F2.8 and focus now isn't critical. I always opt for the easy method and safest option to get the shot.

My approach is very similar to Chris's and I never film speeches from the back of the room, so Steve I see why you need telephoto in low light and why I see it as no real problem. Any cameras we use come down to how we use them and quite clearly many of us use them totally differently. What is perfect for one may be totally unsuitable for someone who works very differently in similar circumstances.

Roger

To sum it up when shooting in a darker venue, don't zoom in, shoot everything up close and wide open and use a videolight when needed and you will be fine with this camera.

I do wonder filming closer to the speakers that you're blocking the view of the people speaking to the guests. Not to mention off putting to those who are nervous. How do you stay unobtrusive yet close?

What about Ceremony in dimly lit churches. Don't you zoom in when the Bride comes down the aisle, or keep on wide. Surely you zoom in on guests during the service, get reactions from them. Close ups on Bride and Groom. Some churches I have had to stand at the back and used a 35-100 zoom at maximum to get a medium shot of the couple. Some even standing at front, I'm behind the choir stalls some distance from the couple.

Running a day at wide angle to keep the aperture down sounds like my idea of hell.

If I were still shooting weddings I would be very tempted to go with a bunch of RX10M2s (or FZ1000s if I was being cheap:-). We started off with 5D2s with primes & eventually got fed up with changing lenses & latterly using 5D3s either had a 24-70mm F/2.8L or 24-105 or F/4 70-200mm F/2.8L zoom. I bought a Panasonic G6 that had no recording limit plus the Panasonic 14mm F/2.5 prime to use as a locked off wide camera to replace the XF100 & was very impressed with how lightweight the MicroFourThirds cameras are so ended up with a couple of Olympus OM-Ds with some fairly crappy but convenient zooms. The later weddings shot with a GoPro Hero 3 plus Panasonic G6 & 2 x OM-D were a delight in terms of minimal gear to lug about as it all fitted in one small camera bag.

The G6 was always a little too small for my hands as was the GH2 I previously owned. The OM-Ds when fitted with the add-on battery grip were chunkier & felt better in the hand but the RX10M2 feels perfect. The grip is great the weight is light but not too light so it feels substantial. The controls all fall to hand & it's the first camera that I have used that really seems like it's been designed as a proper hybrid of stills & video
It's a shame that Sony don't put that beautiful Zeiss F/2.8 constant aperture on the AX100.

I can understand the appeal of minimum gear, how a hybrid camera can give you flexibility and ease of use. Mind you, a recent thread, Roger spoke of 3 trips with gear upstairs to one venue, a trip that I'd only need to make 1 of and that's with a jib and slider too, so maybe it doesn't help after all.

To be honest Roger and Chris are much into Photography, whereas I have little time for it. So I pour my creative side into video only and that influences my gear choice, image quality and service in general. To me all those primes are a joy and pleasure to use and not a hindrance. I love popping on a different prime and grabbing shots from a different focal length. When you can't fiddle with a zoom, it forces you to look at your shots more carefully. I like it, others don't.

Like all cameras, the FZ1000 serves a particular market, and if that includes yours then get it, use it and enjoy it. If not, plenty of choice elsewhere.

I do wonder filming closer to the speakers that you're blocking the view of the people speaking to the guests. Not to mention off putting to those who are nervous. How do you stay unobtrusive yet close?

What about Ceremony in dimly lit churches. Don't you zoom in when the Bride comes down the aisle, or keep on wide. Surely you zoom in on guests during the service, get reactions from them. Close ups on Bride and Groom. Some churches I have had to stand at the back and used a 35-100 zoom at maximum to get a medium shot of the couple. Some even standing at front, I'm behind the choir stalls some distance from the couple.

Running a day at wide angle to keep the aperture down sounds like my idea of hell.

I usually take a position between tables near the front and use my super charm to get the cooperation of anyone whose view I may block. Never had any difficulty or moans and the speakers are always too nervous to worry about me. I have a little joke just before the speeches where I put the camera right up against the head table infront of the first speaker and say "Ok are you ready then?" They are initially shocked, then laugh when I wink, and visibly relax when I pull back.

I've never found churches to be low light in the way some venues can be, and haven't had any difficulty with my video cams. As the FZ1000 has better low light capability, it's not something I've even thought about. Like you, I use telephoto during the ceremony, but don't use full telephoto as I don't find it necessary, nothing to do with low light.

Running a day at wide angle sounds like my idea of hell as well, so I am not sure where you got that idea from unless you have used some really crap cameras!

Roger

I can understand the appeal of minimum gear, how a hybrid camera can give you flexibility and ease of use. Mind you, a recent thread, Roger spoke of 3 trips with gear upstairs to one venue, a trip that I'd only need to make 1 of and that's with a jib and slider too, so maybe it doesn't help after all.



Steve, the three trips were on a solo video and photo shoot, where I also brought in backdrop and stands, umbrellas and lights etc all into the one venue for ceremony and reception. The point is that at a church I have one bag to take in and while I am filming at the venue I have little to carry with me during the course of the day. Of course if I am setting up a portrait studio with lights, that has little to do with speed of filming and movement. Perhaps you have one box to take all of your equipment in one go, but as I have different types of video or video and photo shoots, I don't want to take a much larger box with everything in if I just need one backpack for a video only shoot. Mind you a bigger wheeled box is probably a good idea for the joint package where I have more backup gear :-)

Roger

So Roger, you position yourself in front of the table for Speeches; wow that's close. I prefer to keep a distance and not be too much on show - guests want to see the speakers not me. Unobtrusive means just that. Nice to see you picked up bad habits from the Photographers who feel they own the room and walk up and down the front table as if 'hey look at me'.

As for churches, even my GH4 and 2.8 lens has struggled with some, so you must be blessed with well lit churches. Or buttering the bread of your cameras a little too well. Or maybe you just don't see the noise, the grain the way I do.

As for gear, just got back from London, where I took minimum gear. I transferred my GH4 and some primes to a smaller backpack, and took my gimbal and monopod. However I have this vast backpack for all my gear and a golf type bag for all my tripods, jib and sliders. I've done a couple of Weddings where a 5-10 minute walk to the venue was in order such as Worthing Pier. Those bags paid their investment in one go with that one.

Anyway, I feel another 'this thread is about the FZ1000' lecture is forthcoming, so I better stop now. :)

Roger, what camera(s) have you been using before the fz1000? Just curious to know what dslr's and/or videocamera you used prior to the hybrid camera you are using now.

So Roger, you position yourself in front of the table for Speeches; wow that's close. I prefer to keep a distance and not be too much on show - guests want to see the speakers not me. Unobtrusive means just that. Nice to see you picked up bad habits from the Photographers who feel they own the room and walk up and down the front table as if 'hey look at me'.

As for churches, even my GH4 and 2.8 lens has struggled with some, so you must be blessed with well lit churches. Or buttering the bread of your cameras a little too well. Or maybe you just don't see the noise, the grain the way I do.

As for gear, just got back from London, where I took minimum gear. I transferred my GH4 and some primes to a smaller backpack, and took my gimbal and monopod. However I have this vast backpack for all my gear and a golf type bag for all my tripods, jib and sliders. I've done a couple of Weddings where a 5-10 minute walk to the venue was in order such as Worthing Pier. Those bags paid their investment in one go with that one.

Anyway, I feel another 'this thread is about the FZ1000' lecture is forthcoming, so I better stop now. :)

LOL, I think I've got you pretty well sussed Steve, you love throwing in these little wind ups, then followed up with "Just having a bit of banter" So just for your pleasure, let me reassure you that I don't walk up and down the head table saying hey look at me, I do exactly what I said before, which is to move back from the head table between tables that are near the front.

I don't need to butter up my cameras although I am beginning to think that you are perhaps promoting the superiority of your own setup. I have been using the same cameras for hundreds of weddings and only recently added the FX1000s to the toolkit and don't suffer from quality problems. Perhaps if you are really struggling at times with your GH4 and collection of lenses in churches it may be worth looking at whether you are using your equipment correctly :-)

The idea of your equipment bag is a good one and may well be one that I will investigate for days when I need to take a lot more gear.

Regarding your comment on a lecture about this thread being about the FZ1000, I think that it is a lost cause as you can of course say whatever you like on an open forum, but I think I have lost the will to keep it on subject.:-(

Roger

LOL, I think I've got you pretty well sussed Steve, you love throwing in these little wind ups, then followed up with "Just having a bit of banter"
I don't need to butter up my cameras although I am beginning to think that you are perhaps promoting the superiority of your own setup. I have been using the same cameras for hundreds of weddings and only recently added the FX1000s to the toolkit and don't suffer from quality problems. Perhaps if you are really struggling at times with your GH4 and collection of lenses in churches it may be worth looking at whether you are using your equipment correctly :-)


All good banter is a distortion of the truth, though often to different degrees. For instance, to answer your jibe, I do use my gear correctly. However I never accept anything, even my gear as solutions to every scenario and problem. Some churches just don't give me the same quality of footage as others do. I accept it, but don't like it. There have been many churches where 2.8 at maximum zoom still yields some noise. Okay, not a great deal, not enough to spoil the image. Noticeable to me.

Some venues, even at 2.8 have resulted in an image that was too noisy and quite unpleasant and only a fast prime has kept me from turning to Neat Video. A true last resort for me as I hate using the software. Unless the FZ1000 handles noise better than the GH4, I have to take your evidence as from someone who judges image quality less harshly than myself.