Had mine for over a year. Really liked it, holds my GH4 in cage with standing by itself without touching it and am able to leave it by itself if needed. Now FZ-2500 in cage with cage, zoom and wireless receiver at 5.2 LBs stands by itself.
Only problem is that the different shafts get stuck, sometimes up or closed and you can't get it up or down.
Tried oil with no luck.Have to use a lot of strength to move shaft up or down. Does this with the middle and top sections.

Random Q here for everyone:

Do you regularly power your camera on and off when shooting in the field? Or do you just power it on once and leave the switch on for as long as you're holding the camera, only switching it off when done?

I ask because I've always wondered (really with all bridge cameras with lenses that extend on power-up) how much power extended/retracting the lens consumes...versus leaving it extended.

That said, I understand that after a set period of time with no shooting, the lens with retract anyway.

With absolutely no testing nor data to verify it, I've always assumed that if I'm not shooting for (say) 5 minutes or more, I'm better off powering off the camera.

But I also worry about power switch and lens extend/retract motor actuations, LOL. (Don't want to wear them out prematurely!)

Thoughts?
Scott

PS - I'm wondering now if there is a setting on the FZ2500 that lets you turn off the "auto retract lens after inactivity" feature? (I've never really understood why this feature exists? I find it a nuisance.)

Another random Q:

When I firast began shooting video with a DSLR several years ago, the standard thinking was "Always shoot with a shutter speed of 50 or 60, or twice the framerate you're using.

Does anyone stick to this rule with bridge cameras like the FZ2500? Or has that rule pretty much gone out the window as technology has improved?

Scott

Hi Scott

I just power off when it's convenient ...We do mostly weddings so we would power down after we are finished at the bride's house , the after the ceremony etc etc ....The 2500 lens only extends once so you would use minimum battery there!

Technically your shutter needs to be twice your frame rate when you are shooting double frame rate (so 50P for me and 60P for you) I shoot most stuff at 25P anyway so I seldom bother with shutter issues ...If you are in bright sunlight just kick in an ND filter so the video doesn't stutter in high motion situations like motor racing in full sun. It rarely affects normal motion so I will ignore it.

Another random Q:

When I firast began shooting video with a DSLR several years ago, the standard thinking was "Always shoot with a shutter speed of 50 or 60, or twice the framerate you're using.

Does anyone stick to this rule with bridge cameras like the FZ2500? Or has that rule pretty much gone out the window as technology has improved?

Scott

I can't see technology improving to a point this rule becomes obsolete. A shutter speed twice the frame rate gives the best motion in a video. Have shutter speed at the same frame rate and there can be too much motion blur in fast moving moments. Have the shutter speed even higher than 1/50 or 1/60 and motion can freeze the higher you go. You'll see birds hopping across the screen, movement will become a bit like stop motion - not quite as fluid.

That said, it is a rule I break when the need calls for it. However its not a pleasing look to my eyes and I try to avoid wherever possible.

So what's the verdict on the FZ2500? Is it good enough for event work? The big selling points for me are no recording limits, ND filters, headphone jack, 4K. But apparently the lens is not as high quality as the FZ1000. I probably would mainly use it as 2nd camera to my AC90 for event work. Un-manned cam. Record 4K and zoom in on the footage on a 1080 timeline to simulate multiple cameras. I would personally use it for photography to replace my Canon T3i. Having played with the FZ1000 and liking it quite a bit I was disappointed to read about some of the quality issues with FZ2500. It was going to be my "perfect" bridge camera from work to play.

Are you seriously comparing the Leica lens of the FZ2500 against the cheap lens that they put on the AC-90? Hardly a comparison ....the AC-90 also has so much smoothing filtration that in low light it looks like hair has been stray painted on .... I would be using the 2500 as the main camera and the AC-90 as a B-Cam

I agree about the heavy noise reduction on the AC90. However, the AC90 is a decent camera for event work. It doesn't do anything great but gets the job done and has most of the features that I want for event work. For example, a minor feature is the variable white balance which is very handy for mixed lighting (which is pretty much the whole wedding day). It has dual XLR inputs and dual SD slots.

I would fully expect the FZ2500 to have overall better picture quality. With that said, I'm old school and like the grab 'n go experience of shooting with the AC90. If I were to really like using the FZ2500 I could myself replacing the 90.

So it sounds like you have experience with both cameras. Is the FZ2500 better in low light? I've read that it's not that great due to the lens stopping down quickly. My only experience with 1" sensor cameras is the RX100 which was pretty good in low light for stills but not great in video.

Hi Mathew

We shot on AC-130's which were the 1/3" sensor model up from the AC90's tiny 1/5" sensors and the low light wasn't bad but the 1" chip (also backlit) on the FZ2500 is way better. Just for interest the FZ series actually use a Sony sensor anyway so you get much the same result ...I find the camera a lot better and sharper than my AC-130's

Yeah the big downfall is the lack of audio processing ..I'm using a Saramonic AX-7 2 channel XLR unit under my camera for audio which makes it clumsy for handheld work plus being "DSLR form factor" I had to put a bar under the camera with twin handles left and right to make it usable!!

I'm old school too and if I could get a shoulder mount camera with the FZ2500 lens and electronics in the housing I would buy two in a heartbeat ... I have never been a big fan of using mirrorless cameras for video but there isn't much else out there that will give me the same performance as the FZ2500

Panasonic need to update their AF-101, put GH5 "works" inside and make a couple or three power zoom lenses.

Ron

I have always powered off my cameras if I'm not going to use it for awhile. Doing this with past cameras, GH2, GH3 and now GH4 and just got the FZ-2500 and have done 3 events with it and power it off also. No use wasting battery just standing around waiting BUT it might take more battery power just turning it on again and extending the lens over again?? To bad Panasonic doesn't have a frequent asked question board

Mathew Meyerotto-- I have used the FZ-2500 at 3 events in the month I have had it. One it was 2nd camera to GH4 and the wedding on Friday was an outside Indian ceremony and the FZ was main camera, GH4 was stand alone. The FZ was main because of the smooth zoom and ND filters.
Saturday it was a 40 year vow renewal and inside at a event place. I still used the FZ as main camera because of the zoom since I was by myself, the GH4 was 2nd camera with 12-35mm f2.8 lens. I did use both during cocktail time just to compare. The GH4 maybe just a little brighter, both on wide, both looked fine. And dancing time I used both again to compare and ended up using FZ-2500 more becaused I liked the colors I was seeing better.

Back to your question about the FZ being good enough in low light and good enough for events ..yes absolutely The FZ1000 is actually a bit sharper than the FZ2500 due to maybe extra lenses so if the slow zoom is not critical for you I would get a FZ1000 and save $500!!

I'm actually going to get rid of my FZ2500 and replace it with a shoulder mount MDH2 ..yes it's smaller sensor and not nearly as good in low light BUT I only use the 2500 for live streaming wedding ceremonies and I still have 2 x FZ1000's for 4K stuff .... Streams are all 720P so it's a waste using a 4K cinema camera to stream 1280x720 ... the MDH2 has a robust full size HDMI socket whereas the 2500 has a flimsy micro port (I have already damaged the ports in BOTH FZ1000's) Yes the FZ2500 has a brilliant zoom but to make space for the slow zoom buttons the stabilizer has been moved to a menu operated one so you cannot run off the tripod and have time to take the camera off the tripod AND switch on the stabilizer ...maybe however there is a function button it can be allocated too??

All things aside I still think it's a brilliant event camera!!

I'm actually going to get rid of my FZ2500 and replace it with a shoulder mount MDH2 ..yes it's smaller sensor and not nearly as good in low light BUT I only use the 2500 for live streaming wedding ceremonies and I still have 2 x FZ1000's for 4K stuff .... Streams are all 720P so it's a waste using a 4K cinema camera to stream 1280x720 ... the MDH2 has a robust full size HDMI socket whereas the 2500 has a flimsy.........!

Hey Chris, nothing robust about the MDH2. Bit of a toy, had one for about a month. Dont think it will be up to your standards.

Hi Jack

Not the casing ..that is flimsy ..the decent HDMI socket is what I need ..I just do a bunch of wedding ceremonies each month and even with a Lock Port on the FZ2500 camera I still have issues with the tiny micro port ..Yeah I had one before and regardless it will do the job just fine ...it's only a 720 stream ..single cam shoot. I still use my two FZ1000's for the decent stuff ...in fact I have twp photoshoots and two video shoots on Monday and Tuesday with the FZ1000's so they work hard and do a good job! I just felt it was pointless having the 2500 sitting in a rig all week only being used for 30 minutes on a Friday or Saturday ..such a waste of all it's awesome features ....BOTH my FZ1000 micro HDMI ports were damaged using a flexible HDMI cable so I want something with a tough full spec HDMI socket which the cheap MD has!!

They are mostly beach weddings too! So having a unit that I can replace cheaply when it ends up full of sand or salt spray is where I want to be. It's almost a disposable situation for me and I don't want to waste the pristine FZ2500 on that situation

The lack of switchable ND filters on the FZ1000 is a shame though. For me anyway as most of my work is outside. Have you settled on a good ND filter for exterior work Chris?

Hi Bill

I have two Fotga Variable ND's on each camera and they seem to be OK but probably not the best ... When they are used they seem to do a good job. We don't do an awful lot of stills ..mainly video but the occasional real estate shoot does come up. With weddings unless they are on the beach, we tend to migrate to shadier spots where we can.

I needed the FZ2500 mainly for the nice slow zoom plus the fact that both my FZ1000 HDMI ports got damaged with overuse of cables into the port so I figured I might as well go up a notch, To be honest I don't use the ND's that much ..if you are doing big zooms and don't need the ND's all the time a FZ1000 might be a better buy I would think ..the image IS sharper!!

I'll be using it mostly for video. Full zoom then occasionally all the way back for perspective. I have switchable ND filters on my Canon XH-A1 video camera. Essential in the glare of the early morning sun.

Hi Bill

If you are doing even zoom outs then definately get the FZ2500 ..the FZ1000 has a jerky zoom ..it's fine for framing but if you need a smooth zoom out or in then the FZ1000 doesn't do a good job! If you get the 2500 then you don't have to get ND's either ...in case you didn't know it also has "auto ND" which keeps the iris in the sweet spot if it's really bright .. all the HMC cameras had that feature too ..stops the shutter speed going crazy!

I'm doing my last live broadcast stream with the FZ2500 on Friday then I'll pop it onto eBay for a quick sale and use the 1000's and manual ND's from then onwards.

How much do you want for it mate? Email me if that's better.

Hi Bill

Not too serious about a forum post ... Retail is supposedly $1699 but I paid $1499 cos I did a preorder so I was hoping to get back around $1100-$1200 However for an Aussie mate and a forum user I reckon I would part with it for $1000 firm for you ...Only shot 6 ceremonies with it and it's truely being wasted as a livestream camera as I'm just using it for the HDMI output.

If you prefer you can also email me at strain@iinet.net.au

Chris, I'll be selling my 2500 also. Real shame as the video features of this cam could have made it the perfect all round cam for video and stills. The bottom line is image quality and it's just not there with the 2500. Hopefully they'll put some decent glass on future renditions of this model. Back to carrying 2 cams around, the FZ300 for video and FZ1000 for stills.

Hi Tom

I never had any quality issues with my 2500 at all!! Video is pristine as the FZ1000 to be honest .. For me it just seems a waste to use such a brilliant camera for live streaming and not use all the awesome qualities it has .... (we zoom and crop and the switching software) so I really just need a dumb camera for that Could end up with a PTZ as well.

Of course I'll keep both FZ1000's so I'll carry two around too. I would have rather kept one FZ1000 and one FZ2500 and sold an FZ1000 but the 1000's have worked very hard over 2 years whereas the 2500 is virtually new and better for video for someone else.

It is possible to get great still images with this camera:
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/

Sounds like a no brainer to me! Just don't use the touch screen focus and half press focus together and you should be alright. I'm old and grumpy so I don't use the touch screen anyway!! All my video has had no focus issues at all but I never used the touch screen.

Hi Tom

Did you look at this post from Simon Denny? He is convinced the Fuji is the ideal still and video combination camera?

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/open-dv-discussion/534170-fuji-xt2-wow.html#post1932873

Chris, I did look at the Fujifilm X cameras. Great option for stills but limitations on videos....battery life and 15 minute limit on clips among other things. It would have been great to have a single camera for both video and stills but I've given up on that idea after my experience with the FZ2500. At my age and point in time I'm perfectly satisfied with the video from the FZ300 and stills from FZ1000 (and in a pinch both cams can do both stills and video well) and really don't want to go through the hazzle and cost of switching out to completely different systems. I guess if I was really smart I'd just bite the bullet and invest in a D500 and UX180 and be done with it. If the update version of the FZ2500 addresses my concerns with current version I may revisit that. I'll be selling the FZ2500 and, as much as I like it,my G7, and keep the FZ300 and FZ1000.

the FZ2500 (FZ2000 in Europe) has 20x zoom and 1inch sensor

I now use the sony hxr-nx3 20xzoom with
3x 1/2.8-inch Exmor. I bought it 3 years ago for filming stage events because of the 20x zoom.

But I already have some situations with little lighting on stage so the low light and zooming here is an issue.Also the footage doesn't look so crisp.

What about the FZ2500 for filming stage events? The sample 1080p footage seems (much) sharper than my NX3.
and does it have auto iso (gain) when zooming in and out?

I still have my sony FS100 when I want to use XLR inputs or shooting in dark environments with a fast prime for example.

What are your thoughts?

Hi Tom

You can select manual or auto ISO on both the FZ1000 and 2000 it's up to you. I find that the low light is really awesome! I used to use an LED light on my EA-50's at weddings all the time (I know you had one) but I find I can shoot 99% of a wedding now without any lighting at all.

Yes the image is really sharp on both cameras actually .. dunno if it's the sensor or the Leica optics or both! Just for interest the cameras use a Sony 1" sensor that is the same as the RX series so I would suspect that the processing and optics make the difference. I also use a 2 channel Saramonic XLR adapter which solves the XLR issue as most theatres will give you an XLR audio feed!!

Last I recall, you sold your FZ2500 Chris. Did you buy another one mate? I don't find my FZ2500 all that good in low light but it doesn't concern me as I can use my Nikon D750 in those cases, certainly for still shots.Once the sun is up though the FZ2500 is my 'go to' camera. Just have to remember to use the 'slow' zoom when filming at full stretch.

Hi Bill

I actually replaced it with a Panasonic A8 Shoulder Mount Camera as we use that for Live stream shoots ..the micro HDMI ports on the FZ's are a disaster and break so easily and the repair is almost as much as a new camera!!! The A8 has a full size HDMI port which takes a decent amount of abuse. I still use both my FZ1000's for ordinary video 1080 and UHD too but both cameras have damaged HDMI ports so I cannot use them to stream live!!

Hi Tom

You can select manual or auto ISO on both the FZ1000 and 2000 it's up to you. I find that the low light is really awesome! I used to use an LED light on my EA-50's at weddings all the time (I know you had one) but I find I can shoot 99% of a wedding now without any lighting at all.

Yes the image is really sharp on both cameras actually .. dunno if it's the sensor or the Leica optics or both! Just for interest the cameras use a Sony 1" sensor that is the same as the RX series so I would suspect that the processing and optics make the difference. I also use a 2 channel Saramonic XLR adapter which solves the XLR issue as most theatres will give you an XLR audio feed!!

thanks Ron! I had the EA50 but now only the FS100 because it's better in lowlight and bit sharper image.
I also have lookes to the RX10 I,II,III but only I has a nd filter and these more expensive than the FZ2000.

Did you ever filmed a theatre with it? Or someone else?

changed my mind. I saw the panasonic HC-X1 with 1 inch sensor an 20x zoom. I suggest this a FZ2500 in a bigger camcorder body? I find my 1080p output of my sony HXR-NX3 become a bit soft.

What did you end up getting Tom? Just a follow up on my earlier comments on the FZ2500. I'm not that thrilled with the low light results on still shots but on video it seems fine. And about a third of the price of the HC-X1.

What did you end up getting Tom? Just a follow up on my earlier comments on the FZ2500. I'm not that thrilled with the low light results on still shots but on video it seems fine. And about a third of the price of the HC-X1.

I putted my sony HXR-NX3 on ebay for sale but nobody bought it. In meanwhile I discovered that the firmware of the sony was updated to the XAV S codec which is a higher bitrate.

After updating this I decided to keep the camcorder because I wanted some money for it so I could buy the HC-X1. Actually my clients are 90% asking for DVD and I don't film weddings but mostly theatre.

I just bought a second hand A6000 for filming from my steadycam. So I will stick for a while on the 1080p.
Just received the A6000 today and it seems great to me sony FS100.

I had already 2 fast primes for sony (zeiss 24mm F1/.8 and a 50mm F1.8 from sony)

To be honest Sony have never taken my fancy at all. I had, like Tom, 2 x EA-50's and despite trying every lens combination in the book they never matched the sharpness of the Panasonics! The HC-X1 seems awfully pricey so for me it would have to perform a LOT better than the FZ2500 or FZ1000 which is a tall order.

Admittedly the FZ series have a very stills orientated form factor body and even on a rig they are tough to operate but it's hard to beat the sharpness of the Leica optics !!

I'm still shooting on 2 x FZ's but for live streaming we use the shoulder mount AC-8 camera as it has enough space on the body for all the extra encoders, routers and audio mixers to keep the rig portable. The IQ however, although, adequate still is not nearly as good as my FZ's !! I would love the FZ2500 in a "bigger box" just for video!!

I had a Sony X70 and could never get used to the menu sytem on it and the poor autofocus. I've ended up with an FZ2500, a great stills/video camera, lightweight and good optics and an HC-X1. The camcorder form factor is a great advantage when 'run and gun'. Everything about the X1 makes life easier. So FZ for travel/ B camera, the X1 for known video work. The colour profiles don't match and I've still to sort that out but I work in FCPX and usually sort it out there. Very happy I exchanged the X70 for the X1. The battery life of the 2500 is short so it's necessary to get a work around, the X1 lasts several hours. All in all, a great combination.

4K on a 1080 timeline and rendering for me. So 4K is important because at the end of 2018 there are phones and gopros producing pretty much the same quality and you just can't stay in business with just HD. Each one of us may have different needs but we all shoot videos and we should concentrate on the important things.
The FZ2500 (or 2000) does the vast majority of the necessary tasks and well. Smooth zoom and good enough slow panning , no time limit, remote lanc in panasonic protocol for wired remote controllers when pan and zoom must be performed at the same time (sports for example).A good enough low light performance with "salt & pepper" good looking noise instead of the blurred/mushy noise reductions that many still cameras apply
these things are important (very) to me and the FZ2500 checks out

1. Decent pans in 4K
2. Wired remote zoom control
3. no time limit
4. Servo and smooth zoom that doesn't blur when you start zooming.
5. Touch focus

No still camera for video gives all those 5 requirements

for interviews the touch screen/focus is mandatory nowadays. long gone are the low rez days when you lock focus on the shirts/ties and move between the talent and the interviewer. A touch on the faces is the best reliable way.

I have a HC-X1. Would the FZ2500 be a suitable B cam, i.e. will it cut-well with the HC-X1? Thanks!!!