Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000

Roger Gunkel · August 16th, 2015, 10:12 AM

Hi Chris,

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

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

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

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

Roger

Noa Put · August 16th, 2015, 10:29 AM

Quote:

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

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

Steve Burkett · August 16th, 2015, 10:42 AM

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

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

Roger Gunkel · August 16th, 2015, 10:45 AM

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

Roger

Roger Gunkel · August 16th, 2015, 10:49 AM

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

Roger

Steve Burkett · August 16th, 2015, 11:23 AM

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

Noa Put · August 16th, 2015, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

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

Roger

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

Roger Gunkel · August 16th, 2015, 01:11 PM

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

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

Roger

Noa Put · August 16th, 2015, 01:20 PM

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

Steve Burkett · August 16th, 2015, 01:26 PM

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

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

Roger Gunkel · August 16th, 2015, 04:26 PM

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

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

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

Roger

Roger Gunkel · August 16th, 2015, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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

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

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

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

Roger

Chris Harding · August 16th, 2015, 05:53 PM

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

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

Steve Burkett · August 16th, 2015, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Harding · August 16th, 2015, 10:46 PM

Hi Steve

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

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

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

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

August 16th, 2015, 10:12 AM	#61
Roger Gunkel Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LIncolnshire, UK Posts: 2,213	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 Hi Chris, Seems like we are both being continually surprised by this camera :-) I'm sure the Sony RX10 probably stacks up pretty well also, but Noa seems to be finding some odd problems. I am very happy that I stuck to Panasonic and my background doubts about the ability of the FZ1000 against the price, have been quickly erased. On the matter of your LCD screen, I bought a pack of 6 iPad screen protectors a couple of years back and all my cameras have a screen protector cut from the sheets which seem to protect against scrapes and knocks. I've only used 2 sheets for 8 cameras so far. Claire took on our first ever photo shoot only today, it was for a christening following a recommendation from a wedding joint package that we filmed. She came back a little while ago, saying that it was so easy compared with filming video. All she took was an FZ1000, flash and a few batteries, no tripod and a packed lunch. She took 500 stills, and used the same battery for the camera throughout. She didn't even need her lunch as they invited her to join the finger buffet afterwards. She's now had her head turned and wonders why photographers seem to get so wound up when it is so easy!! She wants to get stuck in to pushing the photography only package as she thinks it is a walk in the park compared with the joint package or video only package. She took loads of closeups and loads of discrete telephoto shots of guests and now questions why photographers cart around several cameras and various lenses. I just shrugged and smiled :-) Roger

August 16th, 2015, 10:42 AM	#63
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 I agree with Noa, your camera is no doubt convenient and takes great stills and video. However just as you can see the difference between the FZ1000 and your old video cams, so others can see the difference between the FZ1000 and full frame photos. It's great you love the camera and I'm sure it sits well within your style, but it's a solution to your needs.

August 16th, 2015, 10:45 AM	#64
Roger Gunkel Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LIncolnshire, UK Posts: 2,213	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 I agree Noa that a full frame camera with top quality glass will give superior results, but the vast majority of photographic work that we would take on just doesn't require that level of photography or investment. If we were shooting magazine covers, fashion photography or high end photography of any sort, we wouldn't consider using the FZ1000 with it's 1" sensor, but for the sort of work we do it is brilliant, so I see Claire's point of view. Roger

August 16th, 2015, 10:49 AM	#65
Roger Gunkel Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LIncolnshire, UK Posts: 2,213	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 Cross posts Steve, but the same reply as to Noa, it suits our purposes perfectly at the moment. Roger

August 16th, 2015, 11:23 AM	#66
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 Roger, my comment is no criticism of your style and camera choice, more on the remark about why other Photographers cart such gear about that your wife made and which you shrugged and smiled. I imagine done so in jest, unless you think the FZ1000 can top say the 5d Mark iii for quality stills. Of course it costs more and for your package, not a worthwhile investment. However for other Photographers, it's an investment worth its weight in Gold.

August 16th, 2015, 01:11 PM	#68
Roger Gunkel Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LIncolnshire, UK Posts: 2,213	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 I certainly wouldn't even suggest that the FZ1000 could top a 5dMk III for image quality, but it will beat it hands down for flexibility and convenience and it will record in 4K. Also of course, if someone is looking to get started up in wedding video and photography at the end of the market where the most work is, they would need a pair of Canons and lenses if they want that quality of equipment, or for the same price they could have a dozen FZ1000s, or two FZ1000s, an editing suite, sliders, jib, a couple of GoPros, tripods and probably a second hand car to carry it in :-) Roger

August 16th, 2015, 01:20 PM	#69
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 I"m pretty sure if they would invest in full frame camera and primes and do photography only and if they are really good at what they do that investment is quickly earned back. They probably will also easily make more then double for photography only then what we charge for combo packages. For a photographer this is a necessary investment, for a videographer not, that's why a bridge camera has more possibilities for us because we can more easily combine doing 2 disciplines but it will not be at the same level as a photog that shoots with full frame only and that's the reason we charge less for it.

August 16th, 2015, 01:26 PM	#70
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 Flexibility and convenient is good for me, quality of shots is good for the clients. I'd suffer my inconvenience for the sake of a good shot for the client. Okay it's back to your opinion Roger of faffing around on the arty stuff and missing the shot. However those of us who go further don't feel one necessary leads to the other. I'm not sure someone new to the industry should jump in and offer both. By all means learn the trade with one, then dip into the other. Photo and Video are 2 disciplines. There are plenty incapable of mastering one, goodness knows the mess if they start up and try 2.

August 16th, 2015, 04:26 PM	#71
Roger Gunkel Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LIncolnshire, UK Posts: 2,213	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 Thing is Steve you are only partly right, because although there are great photographers out there and great videographers with fantastic gear there are also many more who buy fantastic gear and come up with poor photos and flat boring videos. Believe me, I have come across many in my years, being the main reason that we added photography to our packages. Although I have been a reasonable photographer for decades, I only added it to our services after seeing some of the poor work that some photographers managed to achieve inspite of some amazing cameras and lenses, and many video clients asking for stills from the video because of poor photography. A camera like the FZ1000 doesn't stifle artistic creativity, but if you want very low light or very shallow DOF pics, or maybe want to blow up to extreme enlargements, then you cannot beat a full frame top of the range cam. Great photography though is as much about the framing and capturing that different angle or mood as it is about the camera, and the FX1000 is very capable of superb pics in the right hands and with the right conditions. Those conditions can be quite wide ranging and enough to satisfy the requirements of the vast majority of weddings enquiries that I would expect us to get in the medium price range. I wouldn't expect or encourage newcomers to move straight into photography and video packages unless they are experienced and competent at both, so I should have put 'video and/or' photography in the previous post, although it was more to make a point of emphasising what is possible and the huge differences in costs, rather than an encouragement to leap in with both feet and no experience. Roger

August 16th, 2015, 05:53 PM	#73
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 It's always about equipment and what camera should I buy and over here I see variations from one photographer with a Canon 550D camera, kit lens and pop up flash (yep just one camera too..I bet the professional decal job on her car cost more than the cameras) and then we have a mate of mine who shoots with nothing less than 3 x Nikon D4S bodies and a pile of lenses..nothing less PLUS an assistant too! Both take photos and both spend 8 hours on site. The difference is one charges $600 and one charges $4000 .... "you pays your money" My friend Rob (he is the one with the D4S kit) also imports his albums from Italy and his traditional prints are hand done over on our East Coast whilst our enthusiastic young Canon 550D lady gives the bride a USB and is done. There is no bad still (or video) camera ..all of them do a satisfactory job and your gear ultimately will point you towards either the budget bride or the "daddy is paying" bride ... I have seen my mate Rob's work and yes it is stunning but you do pay through the nose for it!! It all depends on what the bride is prepared to pay for and wise photogs should have equipment that match their pricing ...No-one in their right mind (video or photo) is going to spend $50,000 on cameras and lenses and then stay with budget $500 wedding budgets.

August 16th, 2015, 10:46 PM	#75
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Using the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 Hi Steve Shucks don't you ever sleep?? It's 1pm here and we are 8 hours ahead of you so am I right saying your last post was at 4am?? Yikes ..I'm sleeping that time of the morning!! I do agree with you, but not entirely ! Good gear should give you better results. My two Sony EA-50's gave me results that were not worth writing home about and they cost me $4000 each. They were OK but never blew me away whereas the little FZ1000 blows it out of the water ..that of course doesn't mean everyone should sell their $4000 cameras and buy $1000 ones ... Maybe it was me with the Sony's but I just prefer Panasonic sharpness and colour ..if I wanted to up it would be a GH4 not a Canon. I think the bottom line here is the results and especially for photography I still get better results on my Nikons indoors because they work better for me. In the old days your professional status was based on how big your camera was not how good it was. If I was doing photography only I would still gravitate to something like a Nikon D4S and I would charge accordingly (since the bodies alone are $6K+++) This discussion all comes down to equipment cost versus profit and if you are selling el-cheapo photo shoots it makes sense to pay less for a camera so you actually do make a profit ...Selling photos for $500 would be very stupid if you had two 5DIII's and a batch of lenses that would cause a huge hole in your bank account. For the very same reason as our photos are add-ons rather than a package we get by on two Nikon D90's and for what the brides pay they give a good result but more importantly a good profit!