Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000

[Steve Burkett]

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.

[Noa Put]

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.

[Chris Harding]

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

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

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 :)

[Steve Burkett]

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.

[Roger Gunkel]

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

[Steve Burkett]

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.

[Chris Harding]

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.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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

[Chris Harding]

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???

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

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

[Steve Burkett]

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.

[Chris Harding]

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.

[Roger Gunkel]

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

[Noa Put]

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.